Cubase version naming question?

What are your thoughts on the naming of the Cubase versions?

Do you like 10., 11, 12 etc or do you kinda like what Avid is doing with the year naming followed by a .release number?

Cubase 22 sounds cool. Cubase 22.1, Cubase 22.2 etc.

Do actually need to see the multiple numbers on a release? 11.041 Build number etc.

Why can’t they do a simple. 12, 12.1, 12,2, 12.3. ? It not like we get update fixes that ever exceed 4 to the next .5 release anyway.

Just a question?

It’s pretty much irrelevant what you or I think of their numbering scheme.

However I am glad they are dropping the x.5 to designate major revisions. That always confused folks.

Agreed, BUT Im looking for YOUR opinion really. We ALL know Stein doesn’t care what we think. It hypothetical at best.

I couldn’t care less.

That fact that you posted shows you secretly care, busted :+1:

1 Like