Jump to content
Haden

Why Isn't Cakewalk Open Source?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, abacab said:

[T]he Linux platform has been fragmented because it is so open and can be customized to suit any purpose.

And while some folks see that as a weakness, I tend to think of it as a strength. By the same token, its not for everybody.

Some of us buy a car from the dealer with the options installed that we desire. For 4 (8, 10, 15) years we do nothing more than put gas in it, change the fluids regularly, and repair the stuff that breaks. Then there are the other folks who buy a car and commence to make it their own. New wheels, special paint, modifications to the engine, etc. Some vehicles are better at being "forked" into something different (I can get far more add-ons and accessories and regular parts for my 98 Jeep than a lot of other vehicles that are not near as old). Is it for everyone - nope. But for those who enjoy it, they can make something that is truly fascinating, unique and meets their needs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO some comments here against OpenSource sound more like necromancy or voodoo! ūüėĄ

The gossip about no standards and multiple versions with OpenSource wants us make believe that the world of the paid products is much better! But if I simply look at the reality e.g. of paid plugins I see dozens of preset managements, dozens of installation variations and even with the dll's have some venders very odd ideas (shells, additional dlls, ...). Also with the installation locations of everything else (docu, presets, uninstallers, ...) and with the autorisations reigns a real chaos! It isn't any better than in the OpenSource world, quite the contrary! In addition the "standard makers" like Steinberg create more chaos than standardization.  I have seen the same with database programming for example (SQL), in the end things are so different that the customer is bound to one provider!

I do not mind that BandLab does not have any intention to make CbB OpenSource, they have paid for it and want to get something for it! That's absolut o.k. So this is not the reason why I write this, rather some imprudent and dull comments about OpenSource! (On the other hand there are also very intelligent and justified inputs like the one of @fossile).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, marled said:

The gossip about no standards and multiple versions with OpenSource wants us make believe that the world of the paid products is much better! But if I simply look at the reality e.g. of paid plugins I see dozens of preset managements, dozens of installation variations and even with the dll's have some venders very odd ideas (shells, additional dlls, ...). Also with the installation locations of everything else (docu, presets, uninstallers, ...) and with the autorisations reigns a real chaos! It isn't any better than in the OpenSource world, quite the contrary! In addition the "standard makers" like Steinberg create more chaos than standardization.  I have seen the same with database programming for example (SQL), in the end things are so different that the customer is bound to one provider!

image.png.ddb9c9a6fd163590e3048dd4e76cc401.png

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who are asking for Open Source DAW for Windows, try to find (legal) version of Ardour with ASIO support (tip: it does not exist, till you compile it yourself after signing agreement with Steinberg).

And from all current plug-in formats under Windows, there will be DX. It will be hard to host VST3 since its Open Source incarnation is strict GPL3 (means whole source should be not only Open Source but also GPL3 or compatible license). VST2 is "gray" (like with ASIO, but not even possible to sign post 2018).

PS. People who write open source programs rarely ask such question as OP, they know the answer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, marled said:

 I see dozens of preset managements, dozens of installation variations and even with the dll's have some venders very odd ideas (shells, additional dlls, ...)

I agree, especially with the shells. Waves, can you hear me!!! ūüôĄ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2020 at 10:45 AM, Haden said:

It's too good to be true that Cakewalk is free. The fact that Cakewalk isn't open source leads me to believe that Bandlab must be hiding something

Your first statement is false. Cakewalk by BandLab uses a free subscription license. This is objectively, demonstrably true. Anyone with an email account and a computer that meets the requirements may obtain a copy and use it for free. There is no way that your experience of that fact being "good" in any amount can change it. Cakewalk is free, whether your experience of that is good or bad or indifferent. Have you not tried the process?

Your second statement is odd, unless you're used to commercial software companies releasing their proprietary code as open source for no good reason. Of course they're hiding something, they're hiding the intellectual property that they've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for and continue to invest in! Are you new to computers? Photoshop isn't open source either. Adobe is also hiding something, their valuable intellectual property.

If the juxtaposition of the two statements is supposed to be meaningful, it still makes no sense. Does the licensing model for the software combined with the code not being open source lead to your suspicion? Does the suspicion come solely from it being free? If you had to pay money or perform a service in exchange for your license, would that reduce or eliminate your suspicion? If so, how much would you have to pay before your suspicion would be eliminated? How would it being open source change things?

I rely on good sense and research in such matters. Cakewalk by BandLab has been around for over 2 years. If they were "hiding something," such as subjecting you to "targeted ads" aka "the unrelenting horror, degradation, and violation  of changing the sidebar ads in your browser to being for things you're interested in," they'd have to be hiding it extraordinarily well not to have it turn up in a Google search or a malware scan.

Moreover, spending all that money and going to all that effort just to pull such an easily detected stunt? Knowing that once it was detected it would turn the product and the company into pariahs? I took those odds.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2020 at 12:45 PM, Haden said:

It's too good to be true that Cakewalk is free.

One last comment: How many on this forum, or using Cakewalk, had heard of or used BandLab before the company acquired Cakewalk?

Anyone?

Now, look up the typical cost of customer acquisition. Divide what BandLab paid for Cakewalk by the number of people who now know about BandLab AND the associated companies. In the immortal words of the late Herman Cain, "I don't have facts to back this up," but I suspect that BandLab did very well on customer acquisition costs and publicity.

It's not their fault if being smart benefits us. :)

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing we may forget is they were smart enough in acquiring a great DAW that had a built in user base with one of the best forums on the net. One can not overestimate the quality and traffic that this forum gives them.  An intangible that probably played a roll in the acquisition.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Craig Anderton said:

One last comment: How many on this forum, or using Cakewalk, had heard of or used BandLab before the company acquired Cakewalk?

Anyone?

Now, look up the typical cost of customer acquisition. Divide what BandLab paid for Cakewalk by the number of people who now know about BandLab AND the associated companies. In the immortal words of the late Herman Cain, "I don't have facts to back this up," but I suspect that BandLab did very well on customer acquisition costs and publicity.

 

Yes! I'm sure you're right. Maybe you went to the NAMM Shows post acquisition. I didn't, but Cakewalk sure looked like it bumped traffic to the booth up.

Big announcements  on every blog, in every magazine. Suddenly everyone wanted to know who this company was. Pretty wise naming strategy, too, even if most people have settled into calling it "Cakewalk." I see it referred to by its proper full name "Cakewalk by BandLab" on compatibility lists, yearly best-of lists, etc., and every time that happens, more eyes on the name "BandLab."

On the old forum, I remember some geezer said that he was taught that every single product needed to earn money for a business to thrive. I said that whoever taught them that was a prime example of "those who can't do, teach." Then I pointed to the example of the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, where Tostitos paid many millions per year for the privilege of doing something that netted them nothing whatsoever tangible. The bowl game didn't give them any ticket revenues or anything else in exchange (maybe some VIP boxes for the corporate heads), all they did was let them add "Tostitos" to the beginning of the event's name. But they doubtlessly moved freight cars full of their tortilla chips before, during and after the game, and for fans of any teams who won the game while it was the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, they'll probably never buy a competing brand as long as they walk the earth. Even typing this, I have an urge to go get a bag of Tostitos and a jar of salsa. And a bowl, 'cause, festive.

Cakewalk by BandLab will have to be around for a while before it will have cost as much as one Tostitos Fiesta Bowl.

Edited by Starship Krupa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Craig Anderton said:

One last comment: How many on this forum, or using Cakewalk, had heard of or used BandLab before the company acquired Cakewalk?

Anyone?

Now, look up the typical cost of customer acquisition. Divide what BandLab paid for Cakewalk by the number of people who now know about BandLab AND the associated companies. In the immortal words of the late Herman Cain, "I don't have facts to back this up," but I suspect that BandLab did very well on customer acquisition costs and publicity.

It's not their fault if being smart benefits us. :)

 

Long time Cakewalk Sonar user here, I had not heard of Bandlab before the aquisiton either.

Heritage Guitars made  my favorite guitar I've ever  owned (as well as played - and I've played some very expensive guitars).   Granted it was made before Bandlab took over ownership of Heritage Guitars.   But you can bet if I'm ever in the market for a guitar again to add to the colleciton,   Heritage Guitars owned by Bandlab is the first and likley last place I'm going  to have to look to find it.  

I continue to be thankful I didn't buy the Gibson Semi-Hollowbody , went on to the next store where I found my dream Heritage instrument.  Just worlds better than the Gibson.    Only guitar I've ever played that felt  like it was made fo r me.

(Note to Bandlab:   Not sure why you discontinued the Prospect model, it is magic. ).  

Edited by Brian Walton
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Mattel would have made more money if they had given their Barbie doll away for free (following the give something away for free paradigm).

Tripling or quadrupling their market share would have sold a hell of a lot more extra outfits and accessories.

Wait...did I say Barbie?   I meant GI Joe.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RobertWS said:

I wonder if Mattel would have made more money if they had given their Barbie doll away for free (following the give something away for free paradigm).

Tripling or quadrupling their market share would have sold a hell of a lot more extra outfits and accessories.

Wait...did I say Barbie?   I meant GI Joe.

 

 

One thing is for sure - Google, Facebook, Twitter and many others in the Tech industry have made billions of dollars giving away "free" stuff. Free search, free storage, free office software, free interactive discussion software, etc. There is plenty to be made by giving away the "right" free stuff.

  • Great Idea 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mandolin Picker said:

One thing is for sure - Google, Facebook, Twitter and many others in the Tech industry have made billions of dollars giving away "free" stuff. Free search, free storage, free office software, free interactive discussion software, etc. There is plenty to be made by giving away the "right" free stuff.

Microsoft gave away Internet Explorer (IE or MSIE) with Win 95 in 1995 and which eventually crushed the business model of Netscape Navigator (begin the browser wars), a paid for (commercial use) internet browser by Netscape Communications Corp. This eventually led to Microsoft's antitrust trial.

Firefox rose from the ashes of Netscape with Mozilla, after Netscape open sourced their codebase in 1998. The result being that internet browsers became available mostly as freeware. Then Google Chrome and others like Opera, etc.

Of course all of this is highly oversimplified, and recommend reading the Wikipedia pages for MSIE and Netscape if interested in the historical details.

The point being that giving away the right stuff can have a huge effect!

Edited by abacab
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mandolin Picker said:

One thing is for sure - Google, Facebook, Twitter and many others in the Tech industry have made billions of dollars giving away "free" stuff. Free search, free storage, free office software, free interactive discussion software, etc. There is plenty to be made by giving away the "right" free stuff.

None of those mentioned are free. You pay dearly for them in the form of having your privacy invaded and your personal data mined and sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2020 at 8:33 PM, Mandolin Picker said:

And while some folks see that as a weakness, I tend to think of it as a strength. By the same token, its not for everybody.

Some of us buy a car from the dealer with the options installed that we desire. For 4 (8, 10, 15) years we do nothing more than put gas in it, change the fluids regularly, and repair the stuff that breaks. Then there are the other folks who buy a car and commence to make it their own. New wheels, special paint, modifications to the engine, etc. Some vehicles are better at being "forked" into something different (I can get far more add-ons and accessories and regular parts for my 98 Jeep than a lot of other vehicles that are not near as old). Is it for everyone - nope. But for those who enjoy it, they can make something that is truly fascinating, unique and meets their needs.

Obvs depends on the vehicle to some extent as there are some that no amount of tweaking can ever make good, but generally I look at most attempts to "improve" what a team of professional designers took years to perfect as money wasted.I used to live next door to guy who bought a regular hatchback type thing and gradually spent more money than the car was worth turning it into something that looked like he'd just driven a powerful magnet past a car accessory store. He'd have spent far less buying a decent car in the first place. Even very high end vehicles can be rendered practically unsaleable by unfortunate choices in the manufacturers options list. To bring it back to Cakewalk, take a look at the user themes and it soon becomes apparent that making a good looking one might not be as easy as you might think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bdickens said:

None of those mentioned are free. You pay dearly for them in the form of having your privacy invaded and your personal data mined and sold.

Which I believe goes back to the basic premise of the original posting and in fact validates the original posters question. Most technology things given away today have something else that pays for the product, and as you said it is typically your data. Its not unreasonable, especially if one is not familiar with the company, their business practices, etc. to look at "free" software with a skeptical eye. Open source (or Free as in freedom not free as in beer) software helps take some of that skepticism out of the equation because you can see the source code and compile it yourself. A review of the source (if you have the ability, or dependent on others who can) can reveal such issues. Closed source doesn't allow that type of scrutiny, so I didn't think the basic premise of the question (as I understood it) was unreasonable. And I think the responses about how BandLab is using the software and what they are getting out if was explained well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bdickens said:

You pay dearly for them in the form of having your privacy invaded and your personal data mined and sold.

Oh puh-leeze. Calling this out here and now. Tell me what I "dearly" "pay" by giving willing consent to Google to observe what I'm interested in when I engage in my pastime of web browsing?

So far, it consists entirely of having the ads (and I will get ads in that place of one type or another) in my browsing experience targeted, which means that they're going to be ads for things that I'm interested in. So I might "pay" but only if I choose to buy something that I noticed in one of these ads.

I'm also savvy enough that when I don't wish to be observed, I know how to switch into browsing modes or use browsers that allow me not to be.

So tell me, because obviously I've been fooling myself and have been paying dearly all this time while somehow being  unaware of the cost.

Maybe you believe that your browsing habits are somehow critical and fascinating information? That they're this valuable treasure to be guarded fiercely? Oh dear. Companies just want to send you more effective advertisements so that you'll maybe buy more things or vote a certain way. That's it. You're just not that special.

So unless this is just a "ha, you silly fools, I know more than you in your blind delusions" smug drive-by, please school me. Tell me exactly what my cost is in using, say, Google Chrome, to pick just one. How do I "pay dearly" for that?

Edited by Starship Krupa
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Starship Krupa said:

Companies just want to send you more effective advertisements so that you'll maybe buy more things or vote a certain way.

I get that 100%. But they are also lazy (with email campaigns). Case(s) in point. There quite a few vendors of which I own 100% on their products yet I still get emails telling me about their latest product (and sometimes 6months-1year old latest products) or sales.

All my ownership details are  in their database. My email contact info is more than likely in that same database (or at least extracted to a "sales" database). Why can't they simply extract all customers who *don't*  already own the product they are peddling this week?

JMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, as you both point out, Ed and Jeremy, neither hardly add up to "paying dearly." Having your email pwnd is a reminder to go around and change your passwords, which, admit it, when was the last time we did that?

And Ed, speaking strictly for myself, I can't entirely fault them for not knowing that they're sending email to such a rampant plug-in 'ho. ūü§¶‚Äć‚ôāÔłŹ

BTW, I'll say it again here for anyone who isn't already doing it: email addresses are free (except the ones that mine your precious personal info oh noes). Create a "low security" one that you use for things like getting free plug-in offers, Denny's Rewards, Baskin Robbins Birthday Cone, whatever. Use a different one for banking, insurance, IRS, mortgage, etc.

This isn't necessarily because the people who issue freeware are inherently "suspect," it's because they can't afford to harden their servers and username/password lists against attacks as well as the big dogs. It's just going to be plain easier to hack SoundSpot than it is Wells Fargo, but if you're using the same email and password at both places, bingo!

So be "dingdongdawdaddy AT yahoo dot com" for things like BandLab and PluginBoutique. Yahoo allows multiple email addresses. Use one of the "5 free email addresses" your cable TV company gave you that you never use. Whatever. The companies giving you the freebies don't mind, they can still send you the offers, and when you feel like browsing, you'll have a dedicated inbox to open like a catalog.

Also, if you're getting too many offers, for heaven's sake unsubscribe. Although with some of them (cough Waves cough) you have to put up with what seems like a daily dose of junk offers (2 FREE plug-ins!!, um, that is if you spend more than a certain amount) to get the occasional true gem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...