Development policy

I think it becomes difficult with a Daw, to cover all needs… Steinberg (and some others) try to do that but we see that it becomes impossible. The consequence of this policy is Each upgrade includes a lot of improvements we don’t need because, these improvements are usuable for other kind of usage we have . I think it could be better for the future to have a Cubase dedicated for electronic music which competes with Live, a Cubase for recording/mixing to compete with PT, and a Cubase for virtual orchestrator which compete with StudioOne or Reaper as Strinberg does with Nuendo which is consequently probably the best tool on its dedicated market… wishing to cover all, Steinberg offer a good « generalist » Daw but not the best for each kind of usage… for example, virtual orchestrators, for example, we have no great improvements between Cubase 10 and now… just the possibility to see markers and tempo in the midi editor… it is very poor for 200 dollars or euros… and I am pretty sure that we may write the same remark for beatmakers, electro music composers or professional studios… Are you agree with this point of view ?


This is a problem of every large universal system (not just software).

A small hardware device could run on dedicated firmware, which could improve performance and have dedicated features, speedy updates, etc. Or it could run on Windows/Linux-based firmware.

Microsoft Excel is a huge system, you can use for many many use cases. On the other hand, if you need a specific use case only, you can find a better tool.

Adobe Photoshop is a huge graphical editor. If you want a dedicated task, maybe you can find a better editor.

On the other hand, if you use dedicated small tools, you have to buy multiple tools, which might overlap in some parts. You have to learn multiple workflows. They might not be compatible with each other.

1 Like

I understand your point of view but I maintain that it is difficult for each user to accept to pay near 100 dollars or 100 Euros to upgrade a soft considering that only 20% or less new features may cover own usages… this problem is not the same for Nuendo or Dorico which respectively have a tight clear market where all users have approximately common needs… Inthink that, today, for example, a young composer who wants to create electronic music will join Live users, with no doubt… He knows that each new version improves its own needs, not the needs of virtual orchestrators or studios engineers… but I know it is just a little point of view… not an universal truth of course !

This is complete nonsense. Nuendo has all features Cubase has, and on top some special tools for special markets. But it is the same general approach as it is on Cubase.