morelli
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 15
- Joined: 2005/02/21 19:03:10
- Status: offline
Sonar on Mac OS X?
I switched to Mac a while ago. For some reason it upsets some Windows users when
they hear it, but I'm not here to get flamed by Osama bin Windows-Fanatic. I'm just
much happier on Mac and don't want to deal with Windows anymore, even just for
running Sonar. That leaves me with a problem though. What do I do with all my Sonar
projects?
Three questions:
1. I've been hearing rumors that Sonar is coming to OS X. Anyone here know anything
about that? If Sonar for Mac comes out, that would be the best solution.
2. Anyone know of a utility that converts Sonar projects to a native Mac format, like
a Logic project?
3. Does anyone know how well Sonar runs in the new version of Parallels (version 3)?
I've heard that it runs well, but you might need to have two midi interfaces if you want
to run a native OS X sequencer at the same time because you can't share USB devices.
Anyway, don't take my word for it, I have no direct experience. I'd appreciate hearing
from anyone running Sonar inside Parallels.
(I know I can run Sonar fine in Bootcamp. It's just, when you;re running
Bootcamp, you're running Windows. I don't want to run Windows, I want to run OS X.)
|
BruceEnnis
Max Output Level: -58.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1665
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:48:01
- Location: Maryland
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/26 21:37:04
(permalink)
1. I've been hearing rumors that Sonar is coming to OS X. Anyone here know anything about that? If Sonar for Mac comes out, that would be the best solution. NOT TRUE from what I've heard I would not complain if it happened though  2. Anyone know of a utility that converts Sonar projects to a native Mac format, like a Logic project? Save files in OMF format 3. Does anyone know how well Sonar runs in the new version of Parallels (version 3)? I've heard that it runs well, but you might need to have two midi interfaces if you want to run a native OS X sequencer at the same time because you can't share USB devices. Anyway, don't take my word for it, I have no direct experience. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone running Sonar inside Parallels. Never tried Sonar on my Mac Pro or Macbook Pro although I've been giving it some thought lately.
|
inmazevo
Max Output Level: -42.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3276
- Joined: 2006/01/03 18:30:38
- Location: Pacific Northwest
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/26 22:53:35
(permalink)
Odd that people get upset about your computing choices. I see that too, but almost always the other way around at work, with everyone being Linux/Mac heads. Just ignore it... it's your choice what you use. To try and answer your queries: 1. Not true, from the CEO of Cake himself, more than once, here and in interviews (can't remember the link... perhaps someone else knows the video link where he talks about it taking years to port and not seeing the benefit). However, that doesn't mean they won't make a DAW for the Mac, it just means that it won't be a converted/ported version of Sonar, which is infused with Windows libraries that make it prohibitively expensive from a business point of view. 2. Like Bruce said, use OMF. I'm about to be doing this back and forth between some Sonar tracks and Logic Pro tracks myself, but I've never done it before, so I can't offer direct assistance with it. 3. I don't use parallels, but at work we're using the Mac version of VMWare, which is the same idea: virtualization software. One thing I'd point out, however... when you're in a virtualized environment, you're still running Windows. If your reasoning for moving to parallels rather than bootcamping Windows is because "when you're running Bootcamp, you're running Windows," you're misinterpreting virtualization. It IS Windows, in a virtual machine... the computer is faked out, not the operating system. There are cases where (for chipset/driver reasons) running in a virtual machine can give a helpful compatibility layer. I've seen that personally with some virtualized Linux distributions that wouldn't run well on the actual hardware because of this or that chipset (video, motherboard, nic card, etc.), but that run well on the same machine when running within a VM. However, in any case, the performance will not be the same as running via bootcamp. You're sharing resources when running VMs, and you're not when your directly booting. It doesn't mean it will be bad performance, depending on the machine you have and the resources it has, but it won't be the same performance as booting one off. Personally, I'm going the bootcamp route on my machine for DAW use, since I have no intention of dropping Windows for Mac, or Mac for Windows. I like using both, and haven't had any major heartache doing so. I haven't had a major problem on Windows in over 6 years, but mileage obviously varies.  If you want to to go virtual, parallels will let you do it, as will the VMWare solution called "Fusion." It's beta now, but working well, and it's cheap right now... $39. Just remember one thing with virtualization: you have to make backup images of the system in a particular state, just like on Windows and Macs that aren't virtualized. It's easy, and good headache prevention. Virtualized systems suffer the same things everything else does. There is another alternative: Use both. That's what I do, and I find using one or the other solely a little stifling. Not trying to convert you back... just figuring that in all likelihood your Windows issues are fixable when tackled carefully. Computers are computers. Hope this helps, - zevo
post edited by inmazevo - 2007/07/26 23:03:29
|
studio24
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 446
- Joined: 2007/03/16 21:59:37
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/26 23:51:02
(permalink)
It would be awesome if Sonar came out on a Mac I have to say. I would be happy
for at least a year ;-)
But, I have this feeling that it was born and raised in Windows-ville .. and it doesn't want
to leave town.
|
tdye
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1926
- Joined: 2007/04/21 12:13:37
- Location: Oklahoma, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/26 23:56:08
(permalink)
Hadn't you heard, "when Mac grows up, he wants to be a PC".
|
inmazevo
Max Output Level: -42.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3276
- Joined: 2006/01/03 18:30:38
- Location: Pacific Northwest
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 01:36:34
(permalink)
Hehehe.
It's a simple matter of code-cost-investment vs. return-on-investment.
The best way to write complicated code for an OS is to use as much of the OS code and libraries as possible. It's tested... it works with the OS... it's free.
If I were to write a Windows UI-based application, I'd write it in a Windows IDE, using as many built-in libraries as possible. In general, it will run better for it, and I can certainly develop for my customers quickly, since I don't have to custom code every button, every window, every file input/output.
But, once I've done that, if someone came to me and asked me to write the same basic application for a completely different operating system, which also has tons of free libraries, just like the Windows one, I'd tell them what Cake's told us: it's too expensive to port for the money returned, which is the absolute truth.
Instead, if a market were truly there (and I'm not convinced one is, frankly, in this crowded DAW world), I'd try to sell my shareholders (who hold the keys anyway) on a new application that does the same thing on this different OS. Believe it or not... that's often the cheaper and more logical route.
It won't be Sonar, if anything comes at all.
I'd welcome an app, though.
In the mean time, and perhaps even after, I simply use both (or more).
- zevo
|
morelli
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 15
- Joined: 2005/02/21 19:03:10
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 02:44:07
(permalink)
Just from the responses I've gotten here so far, and a lot of posts
I've found doing searches in this forum, there seem to be quite
a few people who are either migrating to Mac/Logic from Sonar,
or who use both systems by dual booting, using two machines,
or whatever.
This makes me think it might be useful to set up a page or Wiki
or something specifically for this issue. A few useful topics would
be:
1. Migrating from Sonar to Logic. How to transfer projects.
2. Introduction to Logic for Sonar users. A "dictionary" that shows
for each thing you do in Sonar how to do the same thing in Logic.
3. Ideas for using Sonar and Logic for the same project, utilizing the
strengths of each. How to conveniently transfer work back and forth.
Does anyone else here see the need for such a site?
Is there an obvious place to host it? I have a commercial web site
where I could host it, if there's no other obvious place to do it.
|
Roflcopter
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6767
- Joined: 2007/04/27 19:10:06
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 07:02:03
(permalink)
I think that *if* Sonar were to be ported to Mac, it could conceivably raise the price level to Logic Pro 7 or thereabouts, which is about a 1000 euros IIRC. Windows users would have to pay the same, most likely, to keep things 'fair' and 'on an even keel' etc. Not exactly sure I'd be overjoyed. 
I'm a perfectionist, and perfect is a skinned knee.
|
themidiroom
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1170
- Joined: 2004/01/21 11:41:56
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 09:27:14
(permalink)
I catch quite a bit of heat as well for using a Mac. Yes, it's the most expensive computer I've ever bought, but it is worth it to me. I do IT work all day and its nice to go into the studio and not have to be the IT guy all night. Windows is soooo quirky.
|
studio24
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 446
- Joined: 2007/03/16 21:59:37
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 11:45:43
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: themidiroom
I catch quite a bit of heat as well for using a Mac. Yes, it's the most expensive computer I've ever bought, but it is worth it to me. I do IT work all day and its nice to go into the studio and not have to be the IT guy all night. Windows is soooo quirky.
Amen to that. Probably the fact that they can debug that particular hardware configuration very very well. I hardly ever get the spinning colorwheel of death.
|
kp
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1496
- Joined: 2004/01/21 15:22:09
- Location: London, UK
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 12:12:38
(permalink)
Lucky you - I can crash our Mac at work (we're on our third one, so it's not hardware specific) juts by looking at it.
|
studio24
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 446
- Joined: 2007/03/16 21:59:37
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 13:32:13
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: kp
Lucky you - I can crash our Mac at work (we're on our third one, so it's not hardware specific) juts by looking at it.
Maybe if you place it on the right side of the room and give it 110 AC and 60Hz it will be happier?
|
morelli
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 15
- Joined: 2005/02/21 19:03:10
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 14:20:41
(permalink)
I think that *if* Sonar were to be ported to Mac, it could conceivably raise the price level to Logic Pro 7 or thereabouts, which is about a 1000 euros IIRC. Windows users would have to pay the same, most likely, to keep things 'fair' and 'on an even keel' etc. Not exactly sure I'd be overjoyed. Uh, that's a strange fear. Like any business, Cakewalk will usually sell its products for whatever price it believes maximizes its profit over the long term. The higher the sale price, the higher the profit margin, but the smaller the sales volume. At some price level, the total profit is maximized. A company sometimes accepts a lower total profit in order to gain a larger market share. In any case, if Cakewalk could sell Sonar at 2 or 3 times the price without sacrificing profits and/or market share, it would already have done so. I don't see any reason why selling in the Mac market would have any bearing on the price of its Windows products. Steinberg, which sells in both the Windows and Mac markets, and competes with both Sonar and Logic, would probably be overjoyed if Cakewalk made the bizarre decision to arbitrarily raise its price on Sonar by a factor of 2 or 3. They would surely clean up. Selling for Mac would increase Sonar's market share and revenues at the expense of a higher development, support, and marketing costs. That's really the only obvious business issue involved. In the US, Logic Pro 7 is less than half of the 1000 euros you are claiming it costs, and Logic Express is far less expensive. Cubase and Digital Performer, among others, compete with Logic in exactly the same way Sonar would. Do you see anything unusual happening to the pricing of those products?
|
morelli
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 15
- Joined: 2005/02/21 19:03:10
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 15:23:17
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: inmazevo
Hehehe.
It's a simple matter of code-cost-investment vs. return-on-investment.
The best way to write complicated code for an OS is to use as much of the OS code and libraries as possible. It's tested... it works with the OS... it's free.
If I were to write a Windows UI-based application, I'd write it in a Windows IDE, using as many built-in libraries as possible. In general, it will run better for it, and I can certainly develop for my customers quickly, since I don't have to custom code every button, every window, every file input/output.
But, once I've done that, if someone came to me and asked me to write the same basic application for a completely different operating system, which also has tons of free libraries, just like the Windows one, I'd tell them what Cake's told us: it's too expensive to port for the money returned, which is the absolute truth.
Instead, if a market were truly there (and I'm not convinced one is, frankly, in this crowded DAW world), I'd try to sell my shareholders (who hold the keys anyway) on a new application that does the same thing on this different OS. Believe it or not... that's often the cheaper and more logical route.
It won't be Sonar, if anything comes at all.
I'd welcome an app, though.
In the mean time, and perhaps even after, I simply use both (or more).
- zevo
Well, I think it ultimately is just a business decision, not a technical one. The port can be done if expanding into the Mac market is part of the company's strategy. Regardless of how the application is developed, if it is done competently there will be a separation between things like GUI code and external libraries and the handling of the internal data. It's really the only way to have a maintainable large scale software project. And also, Microsoft has made many changes to its programming models over the years, so even if you intend only to work with Microsoft OS's, you still need that separation. And it would be even more risky to tie your app closely to some third party library whose future is unknown. I'm sure that large parts of Sonar are quite OS independent. There's also the entire architecture of the program, the data structures, the file formats, etc. that have already been worked out. Even if they had to write the whole thing again from scratch for Mac, have that already worked out would mean a big acceleration. Even with the GUI, the hardest part is designing it. Writing the code for putting a button on a window can be done by an above average monkey once the design of the GUI is set. The Mac GUI would generally be very similar to the Windows one. Intuit stated quite emphatically that it would never support Mac. But after the release of OS X and the reinvigoration of Apple, they decided to release Quicken and Quickbooks for Mac. Those applications are quite non-trivial, but Intuit didn't seem to have an insurmountable problem getting them done for OS X. I once spoke with a developer at a software company about whether they planned to support OS/2. (This was in 1995, when OS/2 was still somewhat viable.) This developer told me they'd looked at the issue and they could do a rough port in a weekend. Getting the kinks out would take a few more months if they devoted enough resources. The technical issue was minor. The real issue was business. If they supported OS/2, they'd need to do things like print a new manual, train their support staff in OS/2, etc. They didn't want to do those things; that was the basis of their decision.
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 15:27:36
(permalink)
In the US, Logic Pro 7 is less than half of the 1000 euros you are claiming it costs, and Logic Express is far less expensive. Cubase and Digital Performer, among others, compete with Logic in exactly the same way Sonar would. Do you see anything unusual happening to the pricing of those products? I just did a quick cost comparison at Sweetwater... Apple Logic Pro 7.2 - $999.00 MOTU Digital Performer 5 - $499.97 Steinberg Cubase 4 - $799.99 Cakewalk SONAR 6 Producer Edition - $499.97 Of those four, only DP is on par price-wise with Sonar. Which I find interesting, since it's also the only one that's never been dual platform. Also interesting is that they don't seem to have a "lite" version. Steinberg Cubase 4 Crossgrade - $439.99 MOTU Digital Performer Competitive Upgrade - $395.00 Cakewalk SONAR 6 Producer Competitive Upgrade - $399.97 All are close, but only $5 separates DP and Sonar. What's missing is a competitive upgrade for Logic. Huh. Apple Logic Express 7 - $299.00 Steinberg Cubase Studio 4 - $399.99 Cakewalk SONAR 6 Studio Edition - $299.97 Cubase takes the $$ lead in lite versions. Hmmm...
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
D.Triny
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 870
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 23:02:02
(permalink)
so it's not hardware specific must be your custom software den 
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 23:27:13
(permalink)
Multi-platform development is enormously more difficult. It's not a linear scale, it's more like an exponential increase in complexity. You have to really think hard about whether that enormous extra effort is going to be worth the money. I don't think it would be for SONAR to try to support the Mac OS. I think that, in this market, the software is mostly the driver, not the hardware or OS. And to the extent that the OS is, Windows is far and away the dominant OS as well. So it would be a tough business decision to justify.
Not to mention that such products tend not to be optimally integrated into either platform, because of the compromises necessary to support both platforms. There are some things that are fairly easy. Over the last 14 years I've developed a huge object framework (725K lines currently) that makes all of the 'back end' stuff, meaning all things non-GUI, fairly easy to port, though even there there are serious difficulties. Our product doesn't directly use any OS calls and no OS or compiler headers are visible to it, outside of a few small 'virtual kernel' libraries that hide all of that. It's an amazingly clean system.
It also encapsulates all of the GUI stuff as well. But in the GUI, encapsulation isn't enough. We implement all of our own custom windows even (except for frame windows which are hard to get around in Windows.) Today's applications are passive in the interface, meaning that though they may have many threads running behind the scenes that are proactive, the GUI is in the control of the operating system, and the application just responds to 'events' that the OS makes it aware of (the user clicked here, this window just got bigger or smaller, a menu selection was made, etc...) There are MANY such events, and even if you encapsulate the mechanisms by which they are delivered, that doesn't deal with the issue of semantics and order of events. The events can have subtly to grossly different meanings or contexts on each platform, and they can be in quite different orders and have very different limitations as to what can be done in response to them.
This makes the GUI part quite hard to deal with on a cross-platform basis, even if you get all the back end stuff right and even if you hide all the turning wheels. And the amount of stuff you have to deal with in a modern OS to be fully integrated into it (security, power management, media formats, internationalization and localization, installers, all of the build tools which are different on each platform, etc...), it gets more and more complex, and probably purposefully because it ties the developer to the platform more strongly due to the huge effort to port (though less cynically it also provides more features to the end user.)
A DAW might have a little less difficult a time of it, because the interface is often very non-standard anyway. But still, it's a huge effort to create a complex GUI that is multi-platform and feels reasonably integrated on each platform. After doing all that work to create such a framework, we ended up on Windows only anyway, because there's just not a business argument to do otherwise. As with DAW software, in our business (home automation) the software rules. People buy whatever hardware and OS is required to run the software that they choose, because it's really what is important.
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 23:28:31
(permalink)
I once spoke with a developer at a software company about whether they planned to support OS/2. (This was in 1995, when OS/2 was still somewhat viable.) This developer told me they'd looked at the issue and they could do a rough port in a weekend. Never believe that from a developer. Being one, I know that we are always overly optimistic about these things, and even then they only think about the technical issues, not the many other issues that extend beyond just hacking the code. You cannot do anything useful on a commercial product in a weekend and it will double your support and testing burden even if you somehow managed to create a completely frictionless multi-platform development scheme (which you won't.) It would require a significant commitment to support another platform on a number of fronts. Intuit stated quite emphatically that it would never support Mac. But after the release of OS X and the reinvigoration of Apple, they decided to release Quicken and Quickbooks for Mac. Those applications are quite non-trivial, but Intuit didn't seem to have an insurmountable problem getting them done for OS X. There are different kinds of trivial. A program like Quicken or Quickbooks is not nearly as complex as SONAR, not even close. They are actually pretty conventional programs. A program like SONAR is anything but a conventional program. Just the performance requirements alone make it an unusual type of application.
post edited by droddey - 2007/07/27 23:39:04
|
vespesian
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 517
- Joined: 2007/04/13 22:00:16
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/27 23:59:56
(permalink)
"Osama bin windows-fanatic"..........:)
You're in an amazing state. So stay there.
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/28 00:14:17
(permalink)
There's just not a reasonable business argument for supporting the Mac when it comes to large programs like SONAR or our CQC product, where the software is the whole point. The hardware and the OS become much less significant a factor, and therefore you aren't really losing much sales by being on the dominant OS, so the large amount of money and effort you spend to support another one doesn't gain you enough to justify. If it was justifiable, we could use our huge prior investment in the develoment of our proprietary development system, to have a significant advantage over our competitors, so we would have every incentive to do so if it was worth it. It just isn't worth it. It's not Show Friends, it's Show Business.
post edited by droddey - 2007/07/28 00:23:38
|
keith
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3882
- Joined: 2003/12/10 09:49:35
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/28 01:10:15
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: droddey
This developer told me they'd looked at the issue and they could do a rough port in a weekend.
Never believe that from a developer. Being one, I know that we are always overly optimistic about these things, and even then they only think about the technical issues, not the many other issues that extend beyond just hacking the code. Every software developer starts out life a bit too optimist, overly self-confident, and with anywhere from a little bit to a lotta bit of naivete. Over time, and we're talking years, the emotional toll of the countless deathmarch project [1], unrealistic expectations of peers and superiors, and embarassing FUBARs causes the software developer to, shall we say, temper their enthusiasm for the heroics. It's a hard habit to break. Even the most seasoned professional will catch him/herself almost promising something that's almost doable.. almost... But eventually (usually) rational analysis of expectations and outcomes prevails. Usually "rational analysis" includes things like Murphy's Law, if you can imagine (and I'm being only half-facetious here). It's kinda like when a puppy poops on the rug in the den... the owner rubs the dogs nose in the sh*t and eventually the puppy stops pooping on the rug... 'cuz, you know, having your nose rubbed in crap isn't a lot of fun. Kinda like that. [1] See "Death March" by Ed Yourdon
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/28 01:29:54
(permalink)
And, for that matter, there's a tendency among management to listen to the most optimistic technical assessment because it validates what they want to believe, so in addition to the natural inclination there's also an office politics underpinning to the whole thing, because if you are the pessimist, the fact that you are going to be vindicated 12 months from now doesn't help right now because you're 'not a team player'. Billy says we can do it. The fact that Billy hasn't been dragged off the battle field half dead a couple times doesn't mean anything to them because they are fighting a completely different war.
post edited by droddey - 2007/07/28 01:36:45
|
morelli
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 15
- Joined: 2005/02/21 19:03:10
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/28 01:33:31
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: droddey
Multi-platform development is enormously more difficult. It's not a linear scale, it's more like an exponential increase in complexity. You have to really think hard about whether that enormous extra effort is going to be worth the money. I don't think it would be for SONAR to try to support the Mac OS. I think that, in this market, the software is mostly the driver, not the hardware or OS. And to the extent that the OS is, Windows is far and away the dominant OS as well. So it would be a tough business decision to justify.
.
.
.
Wow, those folks at Steinberg, E-magic, Digidesign, Ableton, Sibelius, Finale, ... must be almost unimaginably brilliant to pull off such a technical tour de force. Along with all the other companies that do cross-platform development. In all seriousness, you haven't really made any argument any more specific than that multi-platform development is almost impossible technically, and hardly justifiable from a business viewpoint. Yet, many companies do Windows/Mac cross-platform development, including Cakewalk with some of its products. In fact, most music software is cross platform. So your theory must be wrong; it predicts the opposite of what we observe in the actual music software industry. If I come up with an astronomical theory that predicts the moon is a glowing mass of nuclear reactions and the sun is rock circling the earth, I need to rethink my theory. So I stand by my belief that the decision to bring Sonar to Mac is not a technical impossibility, not a hopeless dream, ... just a matter of business strategy. When someone has an argument that disproves the existence of Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools, Live, Finale, Sibelius, and a million plug ins, not to mention a wealth of non-music software, that are all profitably developed cross platform, then I'll rethink my position.
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/28 01:53:14
(permalink)
Wow, those folks at Steinberg, E-magic, Digidesign, Ableton, Sibelius, Finale, ... must be almost unimaginably brilliant to pull off such a technical tour de force. Along with all the other companies that do cross-platform development. Well, some of them probably started on the Mac, right? If you started on the Mac, then you do have move of an incentive to be cross platform, because you are on the immensely outnumbered OS. And I didn't say it was impossible. I've done it before myself (Windows and OS/2, and Windows and Linux.) I just said it vastly increased the complexity of the product, and it's hard to justify unless it would make for a signficant increase in revenues to make up for it. There are X percent of people who use a given OS and won't use any product that uses the other one. That's clearly true. But X percent of 8 percent is a lot different from X percent of 92 percent. The latter is a lot larger number so it's probably a lot more worth it for someone who starts in the Mac world to do it. And unless they are going to drop their existing customer base, they have to maintain the Mac version as well. But if you are on the 92% OS, and all you are looking to pick up is X percent of 8 percent, it's a much different business proposition, and you have no Mac users to lose. So yes, it is a business strategy, as I pointed out a number of times above. But the reason it's not necessarily a good business strategy is because of the technical issues, which translate to more resources required to deliver, which transalates to needing enough extra revenues not just to cover the extra expense, but to make money off of it. Else, it's not worth it from a business standpoint. Not to mention that many people who might use a Mac at home may still use a Windows machine at work, and therefore have less of a barrier to acceptance of Windows based products, whereas most Windows users probably have never touched a Mac and the barreir would be higher. So the X percent is considerably smaller probably on the Mac to Windows side than the Windows to Mac side, making it that much less of a business draw. And, as I pointed out above, when the product is a very large one, and the machine is often dedicated to the task, that makes it even less likely that the OS used will drive the sale or lack thereof.
post edited by droddey - 2007/07/28 02:11:38
|
inmazevo
Max Output Level: -42.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3276
- Joined: 2006/01/03 18:30:38
- Location: Pacific Northwest
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/28 02:11:13
(permalink)
I'm all for a Cakewalk Mac DAW application, personally. I just don't think it would be wise to port Sonar. It's not technically impossible. It's just software. It just really is expensive. I'm actually not sure why there's a hangup on it being a Sonar port. What's wrong with a Sonar-like app from the ground up... utilizing things they can, and writing in native Mac code everything else? I haven't seen their code, but I'd guess from comments by Cake employees that it's very much a Windows app, UI and underlying logic. I think that if people knew the difficulties of porting in today's computer world (FAR more complex than 12-15 years ago), they'd RATHER have an app that's actually custom written for the OS, be it Mac or Windows, or whatever. If Cake writes a new DAW for Mac, though, I'd at least demo it... I'd even beta-test for them. A couple of things to remember: Cubase has been multi-platform since before computers reached the level of complexity we're at now. They have tons of custom code that's built up over time to work with, and very likely far fewer OS libraries. Having come to here from Cubase for both Mac and PC, I have to say that if that's the model of what you get when you go cross-platform, I don't want to EVER do it. They drop support for things all the time... years and years now... and they generally cite cost, which frankly doesn't help the argument of having the same app for both platforms, IMHO... though, I blame most of that on Steinberg's horrific management, and not the code cost. eMagic was in the same position as Cubase when they were doing Logic... multi-platform from way back. The first thing Apple did was drop that idea. Many think it's to get you to buy a Mac, which is probably at least a little true, but I have to think that at least some of it is the cost of maintaining such a complicated app (more complicated that Sonar, IMO). Consequently, they STILL haven't fully Apple-ized it.. it's out of place in their "pro" line, and still very much looks like an emagic app... which, 3 years on, seems a bit strange. They seem to be having such trouble with maintaining it that they CHARGE for updates, $29 for one, and $49 for the other, and the app cost twice as much a Sonar in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I've used Logic since the emagic days, starting with it on Windows actually. I love it, and use it every day, but it is behind in terms of its place in the Apple software line, by about 2 years. One of the MANY rumors about the next version of it is that it's a complete rewrite of the app. If that actually turns out to be true, and they're particularly tight-lipped about it, it means they actually decided to drop a ton of code to start over. In my experience, that usually means that it was too complicated to maintain/extend, even on just one platform. We're doing that at work right now, actually, with an unusually complicated bit of Java/EJB/Oracle/JDBC/JSP code. It's baked, so we're starting over. Ableton Live is kind of like uber-project5, an yet costs $500. I like Live as well, and might get it to pair with Logic Pro on the Mac I'm writing this from, but only because I can get it for $299 from the lite version. I'd never pay $500 for it. Just to be clear: I really would support a Cake Mac DAW. My point is simply that it should be a different app, not a port of Sonar, though some degree of project compatibility would be nice. If they can make some money off it without hurting existing Sonar customers, cool. Take care, and thanks for keeping the discussion civil (rare in this type of chat). - zevo
post edited by inmazevo - 2007/07/28 02:23:39
|
morelli
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 15
- Joined: 2005/02/21 19:03:10
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/28 03:54:20
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: inmazevo
I'm actually not sure why there's a hangup on it being a Sonar port. What's wrong with a Sonar-like app from the ground up... utilizing things they can, and writing in native Mac code everything else?
Actually, this discussion has veered far off where I wanted it to go. My only interest in Sonar for Mac is to make it easier for me to access projects I wrote before I switched to Mac. I've been using Logic since I switched. If Sonar came to Mac, I might use it but I'd probably stick with Logic. Logic is pretty powerful, once you get the hang of it. I'm not even thinking about that. It's not a matter of being so enamored of Sonar that I'm dying for it to come to Mac, or dying for another Mac music application. The Mac has enough music software. I just happened to have had the bad luck of using one of the few Windows music apps that wasn't cross-platform. I never even liked Sonar that much. And I'm pretty indifferent to what Cakewalk does apart from that. There seem to be a lot of people who use multiple sequencers, even on multiple platforms. In the past, I've used just about every OS that's ever been released to the public. That's not my thinking right now. I'm at a point where I'm very intent on simplifying my life. I just want to use one stable, powerful sequencer on one stable, powerful OS.
Don't get me wrong, I've used Logic since the emagic days, starting with it on Windows actually. I love it, and use it every day, but it is behind in terms of its place in the Apple software line, by about 2 years.
One of the MANY rumors about the next version of it is that it's a complete rewrite of the app. If that actually turns out to be true, and they're particularly tight-lipped about it, it means they actually decided to drop a ton of code to start over. In my experience, that usually means that it was too complicated to maintain/extend, even on just one platform.
We're doing that at work right now, actually, with an unusually complicated bit of Java/EJB/Oracle/JDBC/JSP code. It's baked, so we're starting over.
Yes, I agree Logic needs to be rewritten, at least the GUI, but I don't know if there's anything so wrong with the code. It's just that the Logic interface is too unconventional. It's not a standard Windows interface, it's not a standard Mac interface. When you get the hang of it, you find some very powerful stuff. But that's not Apple's philosophy (and really shouldn't be anyone's philosophy). Logic doesn't even follow Apple's published user interface standards. GarageBand uses the same audio engine as Logic, but people pick up GarageBand instantly without needing to look at a manual. That's how Logic needs to be. Not that it needs to drop any of the power. It just needs to be transparent and standard. Also, it would be really nice if it had a dedicated AppleScript API, and ... well, I'll leave it for another thread. But I don't think this necessarily has anything to do with being cross-platform specifically. It's not hard to believe Apple dropped the Windows version for strategic reasons. Nasty, but quite plausible. There's some strategy there of producing the iLife apps for entry level use, then matching them with Pro apps, all tied to the Mac platform. They used the code to build GarageBand, which has actually been quite successful at luring new musicians to the Mac platform. Apple probably also thought that with their enormous R&D resources, they could turn Logic into the most kick ass music app the world has ever seen. I'm very curious to see what they do come up with in Logic 8. I'll be happy if it's just a nice repackaging of Logic 7 in a standard interface with a few new bells.
|
Roflcopter
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6767
- Joined: 2007/04/27 19:10:06
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/28 04:41:19
(permalink)
In the US, Logic Pro 7 is less than half of the 1000 euros you are claiming it costs, I took the list price off their website - so that's not my 'claim'. Furthermore, such a port would take resources and money, which has to be recovered, wouldn't you think? Making only Apple users pay more for a ported version would be pretty unusual, companies usually keep their cross-platform products more or less evenly priced IMO. So, in my view that wouldl mean the only way is up, price-wise. Don't see what's so 'strange' about that at all.
I'm a perfectionist, and perfect is a skinned knee.
|
BruceEnnis
Max Output Level: -58.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1665
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:48:01
- Location: Maryland
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/28 06:29:21
(permalink)
Actually, this discussion has veered far off where I wanted it to go. My only interest in Sonar for Mac is to make it easier for me to access projects I wrote before I switched to Mac. Back on topic I'll be installing Parallels with a copy of XP Pro later this morning. My intention is to install Sonar and P5 I know they won't work with my main audio system Protools HD2 but I'll consider it a success if they run with the internal sound card on my Mac Pro. Just like yourself I have years of projects developed using Cakewalk products like Pro Audio and Sonar since it was released. I'm also going to examine other tools such as CD/DVD Architect from Sony and if time permits Vegas Video. I'll post my results later in the day and thanks to Morelli your post provided the motivation to finally run the tests for myself.
post edited by BruceEnnis - 2007/07/28 06:34:39
|
Modulation
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 492
- Joined: 2007/05/12 19:14:58
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/28 09:20:08
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: BruceEnnis
Actually, this discussion has veered far off where I wanted it to go. My only interest in Sonar for Mac is to make it easier for me to access projects I wrote before I switched to Mac.
Back on topic I'll be installing Parallels with a copy of XP Pro later this morning. My intention is to install Sonar and P5 I know they won't work with my main audio system Protools HD2 but I'll consider it a success if they run with the internal sound card on my Mac Pro. Just like yourself I have years of projects developed using Cakewalk products like Pro Audio and Sonar since it was released. I'm also going to examine other tools such as CD/DVD Architect from Sony and if time permits Vegas Video.
I'll post my results later in the day and thanks to Morelli your post provided the motivation to finally run the tests for myself.
That would be the perfect solution for just opening up Sonar (etc..,) files on a mac with out Windows. But, from what I've read, the performance suffers too much for real use. I'd be very interested in your results....
|
jinga8
Max Output Level: -17 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5817
- Joined: 2004/02/14 21:45:01
- Location: Oceanside, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar on Mac OS X?
2007/07/28 09:42:54
(permalink)
That's how Logic needs to be. Not that it needs to
drop any of the power. It just needs to be transparent and standard. Also, it would be really nice if it had a dedicated AppleScript
API, and ... well, I'll leave it for another thread. Not here I hope...
|