Introducing the new SONAR: New lineup, new features, plus membership

[Burillo]

once again, i don't expect to own a full product, nor even the big new additions

how do you propose someone owns bugfixes for Sonar, but not Sonar itself?

keep up...clearly, i meant (if you've been following), that i wouldn't expect to own all of the new additions that will eventually become the next 'full' product. i don't expect to subscribe for 3 months and 'own' ad drums, nor some new sampler, or a new delay

but why do you think you should own whatever was in Sonar when you started your subscription? i'm not talking about new features - i'm talking about the Sonar itself, or what it was when you started your subscriptions. why do you assume you should own that, despite not having paid the full price for it?

IF i have been a sonar user for a long time, having paid for many iterations, and a legacy bug gets fixed during my subscription, i think it totally unreasonable that that should then be removed...especially seeing as it would be the only thing to show for the 6 months of money that they had from me

on the surface, it seems like a helping hand for those who can't afford to pay upfront, but the problem with people who can't afford things, is that normally 12 months doesn't make things easier. this is setup so that any default is felt by the customer only.

if you are an owner of previous versions of Sonar, you're entitled to discounts. check their page. helping hand enough?

[Burillo]

in fact, i'll make it even easier for you.

suppose, today Sonar has X features. you start your subscription, and over the course of 6 months you get Y updates (whether bugfixes or new features). so, after 6 months you now have Sonar features X + Y. suppose you say, you paid for 6 months, hence you own Y.

now, what makes you think you also own X?

[whyterabbyt]

once again, i don't expect to own a full product, nor even the big new additions

how do you propose someone owns bugfixes for Sonar, but not Sonar itself?

keep up...clearly, i meant (if you've been following), that i wouldn't expect to own all of the new additions that will eventually become the next 'full' product. i don't expect to subscribe for 3 months and 'own' ad drums, nor some new sampler, or a new delay

keep up. clearly you dont get to own anything you havent paid for. since it takes 12 months of payments to own sonar, you dont get sonar at all after 1, or 11.

IF i have been a sonar user for a long time, having paid for many iterations, and a legacy bug gets fixed during my subscription, i think it totally unreasonable that that should then be removed...especially seeing as it would be the only thing to show for the 6 months of money that they had from me

If you havent paid the full price for the upgrade from a previous version, you dont own the upgrade version, so you dont get bugfixes included in that upgrade version.
And that's the same as it ever was. No free stuff just because you didnt buy.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

let's say i have been paying for 7 months, but can't continue to pay. at around the 4-month mark, they somehow managed to fix a bug that has been in every version (that i have owned, and paid in full). are you really suggesting that i should just accept losing that fix; that it is, maybe, just the gamble you take for not paying upfront ??

well, if you stopped paying at 7 months, you dont own the product because you didnt finish paying for it. so no, you're not entitled to keep the bugfixes for the product you havent finished paying for because you're not entitled to keep using the product you haven't finished paying for.

are we now so jaded that we expect that companies will roll out releases that are not going to work properly ??

strictly speaking, if i bought sonar in 2004 because they introduced a to-die-for feature, did i not pay the money for that feature to be working ?? most software has such bugs that have become so-called 'legacy' bugs, that have never been fixed. with every coming release we cry "please fix xxx from year xxx, version xxx, before new features"

fast-forward 11 years, and maybe that bug is fixed during my subscription. have i not paid for that to be working in every paid update for the last 11-years ??

you want to argue in a literal, to-the-law, manner about how i strictly don't own something if i haven't finished paying for it. good for you. (and great for cakewalk). but i still see no benefit to anyone but cakewalk. right there in the text from cakewalk's rep, is written how the money to buy outright is often too much. yup !! this is dangling temptation in front of people who really probably cannot afford to buy at all. loans are always targeted hardest at those who can't pay, because the company stands to benefit from the customer defaulting (in this case, by not losing any sale), and making the customer pay right from the start if they ever want to try again.

if a customer doesn't complete the term (and there are many reasons why that might occur), then they have been renting the software

many people seem to be arguing in defense of the system, so i guess it is me who doesn't understand.

[chk071]

Has someone brought up the question yet what happens when you pay for a year, then after another year has gone, you pay one month, will you be able to keep the upgraded version then? Like, after a year there will have been a significant number of new features and stuff.

[poonna]

let's say i have been paying for 7 months, but can't continue to pay. at around the 4-month mark, they somehow managed to fix a bug that has been in every version (that i have owned, and paid in full). are you really suggesting that i should just accept losing that fix; that it is, maybe, just the gamble you take for not paying upfront ??

i see an achilles heel, and i think that cakewalk are going to be dealing with cases of disgruntled customers very regularly

OK, to get closer to what you're talking about -- that is, you already own a version of Sonar, and now you want to pay for the bug fixes, which, supposedly in the older model, it could be in another big upgrade and you'll have to pay full upgrade price for it.

Now, let's say you own a car, and you agree on a price with the mechanic to upgrade the engine (new feature) and do some tunings (bug fixes). You also agree to pay in 12 instalments. The mechanic upgrades and tunes the engine. Now you drive it and pay for 5 instalments and then quit. You run away with the new engine and tunings. Would that be fair to the mechanic? Would it be fair even to ask the mechanic to revert to the old engine and keep the tunings even if you are the one who breaks the contract/promise?

[Burillo]

are we now so jaded that we expect that companies will roll out releases that are not going to work properly ??

what does this have to do with anything? the question is whether you own the product after having paid half the price for it.

strictly speaking, if i bought sonar in 2004 because they introduced a to-die-for feature, did i not pay the money for that feature to be working ?? most software has such bugs that have become so-called 'legacy' bugs, that have never been fixed. with every coming release we cry "please fix xxx from year xxx, version xxx, before new features"

fast-forward 11 years, and maybe that bug is fixed during my subscription. have i not paid for that to be working in every paid update for the last 11-years ??

you want to argue in a literal, to-the-law, manner about how i strictly don't own something if i haven't finished paying for it. good for you. (and great for cakewalk). but i still see no benefit to anyone but cakewalk. right there in the text from cakewalk's rep, is written how the money to buy outright is often too much. yup !! this is dangling temptation in front of people who really probably cannot afford to buy at all. loans are always targeted hardest at those who can't pay, because the company stands to benefit from the customer defaulting (in this case, by not losing any sale), and making the customer pay right from the start if they ever want to try again.

if a customer doesn't complete the term (and there are many reasons why that might occur), then they have been renting the software

that's all irrelevant to the matter that we're discussing.

many people seem to be arguing in defense of the system, so i guess it is me who doesn't understand.

no one is arguing in defense of the system. you're just misunderstanding the system, and i'm trying to correct your understanding of the system. if you say Holocaust happened in the 1800's and i correct you, it doesn't mean i support Holocaust.

[Burillo]

Has someone brought up the question yet what happens when you pay for a year, then after another year has gone, you pay one month, will you be able to keep the upgraded version then? Like, after a year there will have been a significant number of new features and stuff.

yes, you will keep anything past initial 12 months, even if it's 1 month after 12 months.

[chk071]

Hm, that's pretty insane considering you normally pay a lot more for an update to the next version of a DAW.

[poonna]

Has someone brought up the question yet what happens when you pay for a year, then after another year has gone, you pay one month, will you be able to keep the upgraded version then? Like, after a year there will have been a significant number of new features and stuff.

If that one month you paid is consecutive to the year you've paid (that is, you've paid for 13 consecutive months), then yes, you'll keep everything up to the 13th month. But if this one month is apart from the 12 months you've paid earlier (you quit after 12 months, and get back after sometime for one month), then no, you'll only own what it is up to the 12th month.

[Burillo]

Hm, that's pretty insane considering you normally pay a lot more for an update to the next version of a DAW.

actually no, i misunderstood your initial question. you get to keep anything you get for the duration of your subscription, provided that it's longer than 12 months. but you can't skip a year, then get back on board and "own" everything outright. you'll have to spend another 12 months on subscription.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

But let me shop at your store and buy a product. Ship it to me and i'll pay you every month for 12 months. But if I decide to stop after 6, I am still keeping it. Cool?

because the weight of this thread is in support of you, you seem to not be even slightly bothered to grasp alternative implications

as for your attempt at drawing this parallel ?? it's a non-starter

[chk071]

Alright, knew it was too good to be true. But that's exactly the kind of complexity i dislike about those subscription/membership systems. With a one payment, it's clear what you own, that you have the right to request support for the time being of the version you bought, and so on. Subscription based systems aren't clear, especially as every subscription based system is a bit differen to the other. And most likely, there are intended traps for the user.

[Burillo]

you seem to not be even slightly bothered to grasp alternative implications

which are?

just answer a simple question.

you start your subscription. you get Sonar X. during your subscription, you receive Y as an update. what do you own at that point? you only paid for 6 months, so you can't own X at that point. you can argue that you own Y, but since you don't also own X, you can't use Y (because you can't install Y without installing X). in other words, you can't own updates without you also owning the main product.

so, what do you think should happen in that situation?

Alright, knew it was too good to be true. But that's exactly the kind of complexity i dislike about those subscription/membership systems. With a one payment, it's clear what you own, that you have the right to request support for the time being of the version you bought, and so on. Subscription based systems aren't clear, especially as every subscription based system is a bit differen to the other. And most likely, there are intended traps for the user.

you can pay it all at once if you want. no traps here.

[sounddesigner]

Andrew Rossa, does Cakewalk Command Center have to be installed when we install Sonar? Can we not install it and still install Sonar? Does Cakewalk Command Center run in the background constantly or only when launched? I don't like unnecessary programs running on my computer and like the old way of installing Sonar with just serial number and Activation code. One of Sonar's strenghths and advantages over many other DAW's is Cakewalk has always had no-hassle copy-protection and this is one of the main reasons I've stayed onboard the Sonar train.

Glad to see smart changes made at Cakewalk. I personally don't like rent/subscription models but since there is a option for me with upfront payments I'm sure more options is a good thing. We do get less tech support than before with the new Membership plan since before Cakewalk gave tech support for current version X3 and previous version X2 wich meant 2 years support. Now it is only one year support but the good news is we'll be getting more features in Sonar for our money wich counters the less phone tech support.

I'll be upgrading from my X3 Producer to X4 Platnum at some point I'm sure, I just need to see more of the type of new features I want. Hopefully the Audio Engine is dramatically improved for better low-latency-performance (And for Sonar to stop working the single core much more harder than the other cores with multi-core computers). Hopefully I see what my niche demographic want wich is comprehensive dvd-a and Blu-ray Authoring (seems possible since Cakewalk has just added DSD file support presently and CD burning in the past). I'm sure you guys at Cakewalk will add something I must-have at some point so i'll keep my wallet close when I visit your website.

Nice to see Cakewalk "Rise like a Phoenix from the ashes and ascend".