According to Greg Ondo Cubase 14, 15, 16 are already being planned, and worked on. This was from a Club Cubase. You have future versions of Vari Audio, revamped score editor (worked on collaborating with the Dorico team). Cubase still needs a lot of work as for the modern music makers. I like the focus of working on the work flow. For the core users, film composers, and musicians recording bands I get that it's fine how it is. If you wanna expand your customer base I think they have to keep focusing on the work flow, and the cpu performace.Trensharo wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2024 5:52 pmDepends on how you look at it, I guess.concealed identity wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 12:54 pmI think from a marketing perspective, this is a really smart move. It can be good for the consumer, too, but I think it depends on what kind of consumer. It can be really annoying for those who upgrade every version and don't see the improvements they want. But for those who only upgrade when they get features they're interested in, it can be great to get a really impactful update. I don't update Cubase every version because each update is usually somewhat underwhelming on its own, but if instead of incrementally improving lots of little things for everybody they just gave me a huge update with stuff I want, I'd be first in line to upgrade. But yeah, the other side of that coin is being disappointed with a new update full of stuff that's useless to you.Trensharo wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 8:46 am
For me, the issue with Studio One is the scattershot development. Development is not laggard at all. They release huge features in their updates, but the focus of those features is relatively scattershot. They tend to focus on one issue per years, so you can go 2-3 years before they actually turn their attention to a functional enclave that you're waiting for them to address.
Cubase updates are going to be less exciting because they've already spent the last 30+ years developing all the other features. All the stuff that Studio One added in the 5.x and 6.x were in Cubase years before... and in most cases decades before Studio One got them.
Cubase has less room for feature additions by virtue of its development track record. That means less exciting updates. It's the expected result of a mature product line that has been in active development for decades.
If you don't like the update, skipping is fine.
The difference is that Cubase has a kitchen sink feature set. There is very little it's missing. Most Cubase users were not waiting for them to implement stuff like a Video Track in 2022. That was there over a decade ago.
I, as a user, have 2 roads I can take:
1. Stay on Studio One and wait years for them to get around to it, or
2. Go back to Cubase and get everything I want immediately, and have very little need to consider upgrades outside of compatibility with new OS Updates, CPU Architecture Changes, etc.
And upgrading Cubase every 2 years is not much more than upgrading Studio One every 2 years. Most people do it during a promotional period, anyways. It's always been that way.
Cubase has evolved into a generalist DAW, so outside of the realm of live performance, it basically fits all market segments - from producers to engineers. It has 30 years of development behind it.With Cubase, I think it's role and use it well-established enough at this point that Yamaha knows what it has and won't make any major changes
Most DAWs from decades back that still exist have evolved from targetting specific niches to being deep generalist solutions. They may still have a bias to certain market segments (and their degree of catering to different segments is on a spectrum), but their overall feature set is rather complete and general purpose. Cubase, Digital Performer, Samplitude Pro X, Logic Pro, etc.
The only exceptions to this are Pro Tools and some other Post-oriented DAWs (like Pyramix).
Those DAWs do have the advantage of decades of development. So, by the time Studio One became a reality they had already developed deep feature sets for their core market segments and were basically implementing features in their "weaker areas" to better compete with other solutions on the market.
It's why Samplitude Pro X ended up about as good as SONAR Platinum for MIDI Production by the time Gibson decided to abandon that ship, but SONAR never got as good as Cubase (Samplitude is a stretch) in the Audio Production Segment; because they were too scattershot with development of that DAW.
I see Ableton Live as entering the second phase of its evolution. They have done much of what they needed to do for the Live Performance and Electronic Music crowds, so now they are adding things like Comping and Beefing up the piano roll, etc. to better appeal to market segments that traditionally would only look at Live as a "Utility DAW" or "a good second DAW to have."
As for Studio One, it depends Presonus software is working on Fender software so I'm not sure how that will work with Presonus software projects. You can go so many ways with Cubase and other Steinberg because they have the resource to do with with Yamaha.
