Introducing Cakewalk Next and our new brand identity

[Quinellipe Zorn]

On 6/6/2023 at 11:56 PM, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

It effectively expires as it's eventually rendered obsolete by O/s & hardware incpompatibility. I mean techinically I still have a licence for Pro Audio 9 but  I can't run it with any of the gear I own now. 

 No. Only people that make bad analogies 

Wow.  Nope.

[Quinellipe Zorn]

On 6/7/2023 at 12:08 AM, flangad said:

 

and what would you think of such pricing model:

release different versions of the software, based on a number of monthly usage hours. example:

- if you need less than 15 hours/month of Sonar usage, it remain free (you are a very casual user)

- if you need less than 50 hours/month of sonar usage, you have to pay a "small user" price

- if you need more than 50 hours of usage/month, you are an advanced/professional  user, so you have to pay a higher price.

don't you think such model could be fair and acceptable for everyone?

You could also have another "dimension" in pricing:

- one shot subscription: you get the software with time unlimited bug corrections but no future functional updates (you have to pay another 1 shot "upgrade subscription" to go from version N to N+1 or get a pack of new major features) , community support

-Premium yearly or monthly subscription: include functionnal updates as long as you renew your subscription , community suport

- professional yearly or monthly subscription : add premium support with SLA, chat/webconferencing, if possible multilingual

 

so you will get a price matrix like this: (see attach file)

 

Although I really like this, I can see any organization not tolerating the complexity of this.  I would be highly conflicted were I an internal architect working on this, and would depend primarily, therefore, on the company strategy.  If the company is product-centric, it probably isn't a good idea, I believe.  But if a company is customer-centric, I think it is worth embracing the complexity.  

[Quinellipe Zorn]

On 6/7/2023 at 1:38 AM, Lord Tim said:

No you don't if you only purchase their intellectual property, which Bandlab did. They didn't purchase the company at all, just the code to make the program. They also hired the programmers that Gibson fired. But this is 100% a new unrelated company otherwise.

 But, and I'm only curious here, do you believe that the company (in this case Bandlab) should expect its user base to have the same fine parsing  / respect of legalism that you have of this, as opposed to accept that popular perception will see them as inheriting all aspects (however unfairly)?  At least/especially when said company expresses itself via a famed brand name (i.e. Cakewalk in this case)?

[Quinellipe Zorn]

I want to add:  I was not so interested in Cakewalk when Gibson ran it and was uncommitted.  ONLY with Bandlab's curation and in particular not only fixing bugs but improving the software, after years of neglect and what I would even characterize as abuse, did I come fully back to using Cakewalk/"CbB".  

If Bandlab had treated this like "any" software and hadn't committed not only to the software but even the customer base and prior valued designers/engineers, and shown an interest in making up for the history and catering to unusual expectations, I doubt I'd be engaged now.

[Keni]

7 minutes ago, Quinellipe Zorn said:

 But, and I'm only curious here, do you believe that the company (in this case Bandlab) should expect its user base to have the same fine parsing  / respect of legalism that you have of this, as opposed to accept that popular perception will see them as inheriting all aspects (however unfairly)?  At least/especially when said company expresses itself via a famed brand name (i.e. Cakewalk in this case)?

 Is that like Disney making Star Wars movies? 

[Quinellipe Zorn]

On 6/7/2023 at 3:10 AM, msmcleod said:

This is correct.  It'll be just CbB with new images, high dpi support and a few extra feature enhancements.

There is obviously some difference between rendering vector based images vs static bitmaps, but we'll be monitoring the performance of this closely as more of the application is converted over.  There are a few approaches we can take to mitigate any adverse performance effects of rendering vector based images, should it become a problem.

What generative AI features will be added?     (JUST kidding/commenting on the AI-everywhere hype, not actually making any comments on generative AI or the like, nor implying any sort of thoughts at all re Sonar and AI).

[Quinellipe Zorn]

On 6/7/2023 at 6:19 AM, Teksonik said:

You realize of course that whatever you do is going to have to add value to the current free version commensurate to the cost of purchase or upgrade.

So let's just pull a number out of the air...let's say the cost to upgrade from the current free version to the new paid Sonar is $200. So now you've got to add $200 of value to the new Sonar in order to make it worth upgrading.

A new UI with a "few extra feature enhancements" is not likely to cut it at least for me and I'm probably not alone. 

But we're seeing in this thread the problem with partial announcements with the "important details" to follow.  All it does is spark rampant speculation and fear mongering. ("oh my god they're going subscription") and so on.

So I suggest putting all your cards on the table now. Just tell us what the price will be. Just tell us if there will be discounts for paying customer of the old Sonar and so on.

Clearing the air now will help you and the user base as well.

To clear things up from my end I will never subscribe to software so if that's the way things are going tell me now so I can move on and focus on the other 5 DAWs I own, one of which has lifetime free updates.

While that's cool to express, personally I believe I've gotten so much value out of CbB compared to the cost of my email information and having paid again for Sonar many years ago that $200 for no change at all except for a financially-based right to use with clear terms is just fine.  

Edited June 10, 2023 by Quinellipe Zorn
clarification as it's not for "no change"

[Quinellipe Zorn]

I see no urgency to find out more about the coming commercial model.  Now or 6 months or a year from mow, so long as until then the software continues to at least function as it does today.

[Quinellipe Zorn]

DELETED

Edited June 10, 2023 by Quinellipe Zorn
was answered elsewhere, sorry

[Quinellipe Zorn]

On 6/7/2023 at 11:09 AM, Einstein R said:

Sorry, I meant to say an actual person to talk to for techsupport since now that's what people might want paying for the software.....instead of waiting a day or two for emails or virtual chat....

 

Ah thanks!  Apologies (to everyone) I posted my question too soon.

[Bapu]

A lot of talk about 20+ years of backward compatibility but I can't count how many times a plugin developer would not replace their old (decommissioned) plugin with their own new version. More than once for sure.

Probably not ever a real big deal but I've learned that for a variety of reasons with 3rd party plugins s DAWs backward compatibility is not always all it's cracked up to be top just opening the project and everything just works..

Edited June 13, 2023 by Bapu

[Quinellipe Zorn]

On 6/7/2023 at 1:56 PM, Teksonik said:

Yes you are! It's just a DAW. I'm not talking smack about your Mother.?

Calm down, I'm just giving my opinion on the matter. If that triggers you then it's out of my control.

What do you expect coming  at people with statements such as and in particular "Anyone who thinks it through long term will come to the same conclusion."?  You are stating no opinion at that point, you are claiming an absolute fact and with not an implication but a declaration that anyone believing otherwise is just plain wrong, no matter what their situation.  

[Quinellipe Zorn]

On 6/7/2023 at 1:58 PM, Bruno de Souza Lino said:

Considering some of the words said by people like Noel are not official statements despite them working for Bandlab, let's call everyone who did that unreasonable because they can't keep their mouths shut. Sounds fair.

But since we can always add yet another gallon to said fire, who knows if the statement was half delivered on purpose so this partially dead forum would have some traffic?

I imagine it's trial-ballooning a bit, and I hope that Bandlab is hearing how many want a "perpetual" license and that many support the notion of paying an "annual" fee only once (or in installments) resulting in said "perpetual" license.

[Quinellipe Zorn]

On 6/7/2023 at 4:29 PM, Craig Anderton said:

FWIW, some people prefer subscriptions. This isn't only about people who don't have enough cash upfront. For example, if you're collaborating on mixes with someone who uses Steven Slate's plugins but you don't have them installed on your machine, you can subscribe for a month or two, finish the mixes, and move on. Similarly, if you use Pro Tools Artist but need to do something more advanced for a particular project, you can subscribe to Pro Tools Studio for a month for $30. 

I'm not saying subscriptions are better, just that they work for some people even though they don't work for others. I think the most successful option for companies by far is offering both - subscriptions that include periodic minor updates or goodies, but these don't become available to owners of the "perpetual" version until they do the next major update.

For me, the HUGE problem with subscriptions is if your work is held hostage when you stop paying. That's why I thought the old Sonar rent-to-buy approach of "if your subscription stops, keep using the program...you just don't get any updates" made a lot of sense. It was also quite generous compared to other companies of that era (I'm looking at you, Adobe).

But putting all the pricing issues aside, the fact that Cakewalk continues moving forward and progressing is ultimately what matters. And it's much better news than "Thanks for your support over the years, we just sold Cakewalk to Wal-Mart, have a nice day"

100% with this.  

I'm professionally familiar with software in enterprise as well as small business and personal contexts.  The notion of bug fixes beyond some shelf life is so rare that I find it unrealistic to expect.  I'm happy wherever that exists and for those with the benefit.  I believe the marketplace expectation these days is that a software deliver its so-called "material" obligation, i.e. that it delivers essential functionality while it normally (for a software of any complexity) has ongoing bugs which, while annoying, should not present an intolerable breach of functionality.  Should life be different?  Probably.  Nature "should" be fair too...but reality...

[Quinellipe Zorn]

On 6/7/2023 at 9:34 PM, Peter Morgan said:

As a long-time user since Cakewalk Pro Audio, through Sonar and Gibson, and into CbB...   I welcome the news with some trepidation.  Hopefully Cakewalk by Bandlab team and leadership have done some market research and understand their customer base well.  If not, I have concerns for the future of development.  Once you start charging it really matters where the development focus goes.  Just my point zero two dollars.  Here are some development wishlist ideas - this is an off-the-cuff and very incomplete list of thoughts:

• Update the workflow in several areas where things haven't moved in years.  Other DAWs have much easier ways to do various things.  Cakewalk does it the multi-click/multi-step way "just 'cause" - this doesn't scale well into the future.
• Provide some sort of well-supported/hooked API/scripting support.  This would enable a whole cottage industry of supporting tooling or processing options.  CAL was visionary back in the day, but it's abandoned ideologically.  Bringing back support for a simple scripting toolkit(python or javascript api?) would enable all kinds of workflows that could really move things forward.
• Enhancing the MIDI generation/editing tools (see Cubase)
• Machine/learning or AI support for mixing/tracking/mastering or midi generation...
• Give some service to the scoring engine - or leave it behind and let it go to waste.  I don't use it, but for those who do and would, it's (afaict) a huge drawback that it's archaic.  To have a well-developed scoring engine with client support (look forward another comment) would kick Sonar into next-gen territory
• Develop a mobile app that can talk to a session and be delegated certain views or layouts.  For example:  lyrics to a tablet device (this could be web-based so it doesn't require so much bespoke/multiplatform code).  Music score parts to instruments in an orchestra that would move along in sync to the clock so singers or players could read their parts in time during a tracking session.
• About the mobile app idea: even to provide support for a local network discovery so client apps could be web-based and have limited but critical functionality like transport control or score/lyrics views would be, IMHO, very useful.

As I said, I fully recognize this opinionated list depends on the customer base for the product.  Who is that base?  Does Bandlab know?  Let's hope so...  otherwise I worry that things could spiral downward in a hurry.  Lots of competition in the paid space.

Bandlab:  I wish you well, and I'll most likely stay with you unless the pricing is whacked.  But really, if you're going paid, you have to at least keep up with the competitors, and in many ways you're not there.  It was easy to paper over while you were free.

Peter

Good points.

Re "Update the workflow in several areas where things haven't moved in years.  Other DAWs have much easier ways to do various things." - I'd love to hear what things people want in this regard.  I think it makes sense, but with my history, I don't personally have great ideas of where to update the workflow.  (And I'd hope improvements wouldn't render the "less efficient" steps from being possible, if only because at least it seems to me what I'm doing is what's intuitive, even if there's going to be much better ways.)

Agree especially re API/javascript/something modern to replace CAL, and re improving MIDI generation and editing (it's a little sad that the once-upon-a-time MIDI flagship no longer is.  and I still find MIDI manipulation quite valuable).  And re scoring.

[Quinellipe Zorn]

On 6/8/2023 at 8:17 AM, Milton Sica said:

I think most of us still don't realize that the relationship has completely changed.

When the programs are free/free, what is created is a participatory, collaborative community, where everyone seeks the same end, which is the constant improvement of the program.

The company, unilaterally, which is its full right, will change this relationship.

It's kind of like a marriage where the couple owns a joint business and one of them files for divorce but wants to keep the business.

The relationship changes completely. It is no longer partnership/collaboration, but consumption with completely different relationship rules where even that affectionate codename (BAKERS) no longer makes sense.

I can't really understand this.  I mean, yes, clearly, the move from a payment-by-email/usage information and payment-by-money model is a relationship changer in some way, but I don't get this notion that somehow we were "in this together" when we paid by usage and email and now this is  divorce.  We gave them usage information and helped them decide on their commercial next steps thereby; their decisions from our input until now wasn't out of any pure good will as a part-time hobby in off hours, Bandlab paid the "bakers"/engineers and designers and so forth, not us.  

PS - I am saying the first sentence literally, this is a question, not an argument back or such, as I really don't understand the point being made about, how the relationship is changing because the price of the product is changing from "free"/identity and usage tracking to money.  I don't understand the meaning of " what [was] created [was] a participatory, collaborative community, where everyone [sought] the same end, which [was] the constant improvement of the program."  I mean, I'm quite familiar (despite my extremely low prior engagement) with the close interactions of the Cakewalk users and the Cakewalk engineers, but I'm not aware of how that became a "participatory, collaborative community" where "everyone" sought the "same end" these last 5 years versus the prior decades, where (most of the time) I saw the same back-and-forth between users and engineers, and it has always been in the interest of the engineers, even if not management necessarily in certain critical times, to "improve the product."  So I really just don't understand, I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to express why I don't understand.  I thought I should edit and elaborate given a couple reactions.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Quinellipe Zorn

[Quinellipe Zorn]

On 6/8/2023 at 1:42 PM, Graham Rhodes said:

Lord Tim wrote

"That's an entirely different company who no longer exists, so I guess you need to ask Gibson about that rather than Bandlab."

The comment has validity, but the fact is that Bandlab acquired Intellectual Property from Gibson., so it is the terms of that acquisition which determine any liabilities to licensees of that IP, not the fact that Gibson dumped it. It is not uncommon, and in most cases the norm, for an acquirer to, say, take over responsibilities like ongoing service agreements. Your point is valid in that there probably aren't any. Gibson have zero responsibility since the sale agreement would have negated any such obligations.

What is interesting is where someone has a perpetual licence, as that right exists  whether of not the grantor is still in existence. Ihave the right to use all my Sonar and related products (frozen in time) as long as I wish.

It seems to me that if Bandlab have a set of Sonar users it would be dumb just to dump them, or they have thrown away an open goal sales opportunity. What matters now is how they price any conversion, and weigh jam today against future money. IMHO if they had any sense they would not simply drive them away; Ableton and co would just be rubbing their hands in disbelief.

PS I have a image  on my screen of a floppy disc labelled "Cakewalk Professional for Windows 2.01 /  Copyright Gregg Hendershott 1987 - 1994. I bought this in 1992 when I was in Boston MA, and have used it ever since - strewth 31 years ! I'd be slightly sad to be driven elsewhere.

I wonder how technically true that is legally re old Sonar software?  The only reason I wonder is that a lot of abandonware isn't technically legal to run, but as it is abandonware, it really doesn't matter, unless, of course, as happens, the publisher or some successor is actively exerting control over that (which a few do, which I find ridiculous in most situations).  Along these lines, even if it's legal to run, it's usually illegal to "mess with" the software (e.g. the owners of PARIS, at least as of a couple years ago, were still forbidding third party redevelopment and hacking of the old licensing).

I don't mean to dispute the fact of being able to run Sonar "forever" (hardware, OS, etc. permitting), and I don't mean any argument over the point you make there, I was just musing having known of the legal idiocies around abandonware.

 Love to see the old disks, I think that's the one I started on, though I may have had "1.3" or something that a friend first turned me onto back then, can't recall well anymore.

[Misha]

When Gibson thing happened,  it felt like a storm. Most of us were worried that Cakewalk was to be pieced,  sold for scrap and forgotten.  Yet, Meng & team proved many of us wrong. Cakewalk became a much better software than it ever was. Five years of pretty intense updates and fixes, amazing support by staff, including Noel himself +  retaining  status of one of the best virtual music  communities in the world. Since it is confirmed that there will be several models, including perpetual licenses and subscription, I really don't see what some people are whining about.   Last five years was a joy ride. Given all that had been done so far,  I have a feeling, pricing model will be a very fair one and development will progress at faster pace.  

Thank you Meng, Noel and Bakers for 5 years of fun!

[Quinellipe Zorn]

5 hours ago, Keni said:

 Is that like Disney making Star Wars movies? 

I'm not sure if that's rhetorical or a literal question, and if it's for me or the OP asked the similar question.  But if literal to me as asking whether I think that the situation is akin to Disney taking over Star Wars and that Disney, in that situation, should realize (whatever they decide) that they have to deal with the notion they take responsibility for the whole legacy of it, then, yes, I think it is similar as to the nature of the question/situation, though a key difference is, of course, the sort of industry and how that impacts expectations:  in the Disney/Star Wars case there's the whole additional question of the production of a story/narrative/mythos and questions around individual artistic expressions, etc..  

But, yes, I suppose it's similar, and, if we were talking about Disney and Star Wars, I would raise the same sort of question as shouldn't Disney expect to inherit all the issues of Star Wars, even though they didn't create those issues, again noting that this can still be totally unfair.  

[Will.]

I feel Netflix is busy planning to negotiate a movie deal about this topic alone. ??

Edited June 10, 2023 by Will.