To be honest - I have never really had an issue with the software being what it is at the time of purchase or even the price I have paid. I have enjoyed my time with this product but I continue to take issue with having to play “catch-up” time and time again.
VP
…yep - thats why i would like to see one platform like protools here, Nuendo will have all features possible, then water it down, downward. And then " One update to rule them all " The return of the king of asio
That was my post, and I just wanted to calrify that I only posted that to inform the Nuendo users that also own Cubase, that if they decide to upgrade to the paid version of 6.5, that the synths also become available in Nuendo.
It was simply meant to be informative, nothing more.
yeah I wouldn’t mind if we called it “cubase post”…if its good enought for Hans and Harry G W, then, well, it should be good enough for me - us - you guys 
Steinberg is not the only one that does leap frogging: Magix with Sequoia/Samplitude is another example of bad product naming. But, at least, they prioritize the more expensive product (Sequoia). Great products, by the way, but PC only until mid 2012.
The obvious monogram abbreviation might be a bit inconvenient…
Cubase + NEK
Instead, NEK would be all the post features we all deem as post. DONE! 
You mean PEK Say goodbye to nek
lol I originally wrote that and decided to be serious instead… if only for a moment!
Without taking side in this, all the proposed solutions boil down to the same thing:
Leaving the (finished) lesser feature-equipped application on the shelf for a couple of months until the features of the bigger application are finished. So the leapfrogging will be replaced by waiting time.
Same difference.
Fredo
Well, it is more difficult than you make it sound like.
Let’s assume there is one, and only one application, Cubendo 1.0.
Removing the “Nuendo” features for the “smaller” application would -by definition- make it a second application that needs to be tested.
So there will always be a delay between the two versions, unless you leave one version on the shelf.
Furthermore, it would be very difficult to perform (and even attempt to make) maintenance updates for the “reduced” version, because at that time the development of the “bigger” (Nuendo) application would have moved on and would technically be further/different than the “reduced” version.
Also know that with each version number, Steinberg completely re-writes a portion of the existing functionality, to make it future-proof, future-ready and to avoid spagetti-code. (Code upon code-upon code)
It would also make it impossible to have feature sets which are slightly or fundamentally different in one of both applications. One of both applications would always have “more” or “less” than the other, it would never be possible to have it “differently” than the other application.
Currently, there also is “one” (Master) sequencer version, though developped and maintained separately. Which means that at any time, changes/fixes can be made on one of both and if needed simultanious on both applications. Developement is currently building the Nuendo 6 features, but still they can roll out a maintenance update for Cubase. With one application this would become virtually impossible. Or at least much more complicated.
As you suggest, applying the "Music-only " updates to a portion or “sub-set” of the application, makes it by definition two applications. If you think that it is only a matter of “flagging” the features that need to be included in the compiler for the “smaller” version, then you have been wrongly informed.
Not planning to participate in the discussion, I just wanted to share this information.
Fredo
Well - if two separate apps (under the same dev tree) continues to be the long term plan - then the ONLY worthy solution is to have Steinberg grant licensed Nuendo users a special single user license of Cubase.
Problem solved in a much more expedient and happy manner - with no wait time, leapfrogging or anything whatsoever.
VP
I absolutely agree with you.
If your search through the old forums, you will find that I brought up that idea long time ago.
Fredo
How do other developers of DAW apps make it happen then? Do they sit on the features that go into “lighter” versions?
yeah I wonder how Avid does it, they seem to have one sweeping update at a time, the robust post features are an add-on I believe…plus they have the hardware to deal with, which is always progressing, thats alot to consider - yet its one software interface, you can buy the $500 sound card bundle or the 50,000xx post set up with D- console - So it can be done - but maye what Fredo is really trying to say is it wont (didnt say cant ) be done at SB because of the path they choose to go down…its not practical now 
As far as I know, ProTools is one application with features disabled or just hidden for the cut-down versions. The CPTK and HD are just license updates to the regular version, not new installs to the application itself. ProTools seems to have a very effective modular design to it that might make this much easier than it would be with Cubase and Nuendo. This is probably also one reason it can be compatible across versions, and importing session data is so effective - feature updates aren’t embedded into the tracks themselves.
I also agree Steinberg should have consolidated Nuendo and Cubase into one application years ago, with features enabled or disabled depending on what you purchase. It certainly seems that isn’t something Steinberg can do with this product line, or they simple choose not to (there are versions of Cubase, so perhaps it is?).
To avoid all confusion …
I responded to the following suggestion: “No, everybody can get the “Music” only updates/upgrade at the same time. But allow for some additional time to include updates/upgrades to the “Post” only features.” To which I responded that this procedure results in having two separate applications no matter what.
It’s a system, it’s a choice.
AFAIK, Avid indeed disables some functions for the smaller versions.
But they would have a hard time making something different for each version.
Or update one without touching the other.
So during development, the “smaller” application always need to wait until the “big” features are finished.
In a way, the “smaller” version stays on the shelf until the big one is finished.
There is a lot that can be said about both systems, and each system has pro- and cons. But i don’t think that any of those systems is “wrong”.
Fredo
Well, really what we’re dealing with is perception then, if neither is “right” or “wrong”. I propose that there’s something to be said for Avid’s way of dealing with it. The status in the industry is defined by HD “full price” application / hardware. It’s what goes into pro/big studios, it’s what gets marketed as being “the DAW”, it’s what gets (or got) “pro” support (arguable), it’s what all the “pro” engineers work on etc… and it’s what gets the updates first.
Steinberg doesn’t even advertise Nuendo in the US any longer (that I can see)! Of course not. Why should they when they develop for Cubase first and then let Nuendo be on the back-burner. But it’s a hard-sell to those looking at the DAW with that wider picture in mind. Cubase gets upgrades first, updates first, hardware first, most marketing $, biggest user-base etc… EVERYTHING tells us users that Nuendo is #2 conceptually…
In Avid land the cheaper version is a step towards integrating with the full version that appears in all big-budget “professional” situations. You buy the cheap version “on your way to the top” as it were. That’s the perception. It leads users to view the pro version as something to aspire to own. In SB land it appears to be the opposite: Get Cubase and you’ll get what you want first… if you’re post and can wait you can get Nuendo whenever the next version comes out… It’s like this weird “add-on” to the product catalog…
Yeah, one solution would be to include the Cubase license in the Nuendo one so one could choose one or the other depending on the needs. However, and as I’ve pointed out numerous times, SB leadership is mute on this and a million other points. Zero communication it appears. So once again we’re left talking to ourselves and guessing what SB might do at some undefined point in the future. Hardly encouraging. Meanwhile Avid makes moves to consolidate their leadership in the pro-market. It’s plain to see.
In other words I guess this all doesn’t matter, because SB doesn’t tell us jack sh!t and they don’t appear to care about these sorts of issues… so whatever…
Lydiot,
I suggest you lower your tone a bit.
I thought that we could have this discussion/conversation without namecalling, bitc**ing and insults.
This morning, I removed a post from Tafkat, and I want to keep it to that one removed post.
I don’t think Steinberg ever promised to let you in into their strategy, to reveal their future plans or explain their marketing strategy. They have never done that, and don’t see any reaon why they suddenly would change their mind.
Which still doesn’t mean that they don’t care, that is what you make out of it.
So please, keep it civilised and stop beating that poor dead horse.
Fredo
I agree, I dont think there is a right and wrong, once the factory is set up to make Fords, you cant produce BMW’s overnight, I think this is a feature request by us users here, or more like a please consider taking this direction request…because we would prefer the avid approach…