I absolutely agree.
“habituated tendencies”… Sounds like you’re talking about what people are used to, right?
call me cynical, but this could be a question of dogs and tricks. 
People were once used to 8 track consoles and reel to reel, things evolved, as they do. There’s no good reason why a DAW needs to rigidly stick to being a software emulation of two pieces of hardware, but that’s what we are stuck with, because of the analog legacy that inspired its design.
If they want Nuendo to be competitive (and sometimes it really doesn’t seem like it) then getting engineers to jump ship from PT or Logic is necessary. So if those engineers are used to a certain solo functionality, then why not give it to them? Why have Nuendo be the odd one out? What goal does that serve if it doesn’t > have to > be that way?
I think you’ll need to get an answer from SB on that, they seem to have done lots of kooky stuff over the years, i can only guess that they are taking a chance, trying something different, because they believe in doing things that way; as a result of identifying how it might improve work flow. We could probably also assume that the industry professionals they have worked closely with, in developing the post-based feature set we see, also share this SB vision. Time will tell.
Another point would be that we have a generation of users now who first cut their teeth on a DAW of one description or another, they’ve never used tape, or a physical console, and they are not looking to a DAW as a software representation of such equipment, so why should they be expected to adopt working methods that are essentially hangovers from the analog era?
There is a good reason (which is the one I wrote about):
If your DAW is fighting not just to be an industry leader, but even to survive, then is the best strategy to do things differently which makes it more time consuming for engineers to migrate to it, or to conform to a standard?
If it was only solo/mute that’d be one thing (and perhaps we’re just talking about the issue of bugs, not design), but there are other issues as well where Steinberg simply told the users “tough luck, this is the Steinberg way, compatibility be damned”, which doesn’t seem all too bright in my opinion.
Sorry to be a downer, but I fail to see who these industry professionals are and how it has increased market share. Don’t get me wrong, Nuendo is a fantastic product, but given all the fairly serious bugs considering that it’s a post app the notion that they’ve “worked closely with” “industry professionals” rings partially hollow.
If the “lesser” users (no disrespect meant) find problems with choppy video, truncated video, dropped video frames, .aaf import problems, solo mute problems, and it takes a long time to solve, at least I wonder who these professionals are, and more importantly, how many they are. Not saying they aren’t good at what they do, but apparently something is askew here. Look at the bigger picture.
That’s not the point (I’m making). If they’re in the US and many other parts they’ll be looking at Logic because it’s intimately connected with the Apple computers (duh, I know), and Macs (and thus Logic) are “the standard for artists”. Second on that list, once again not everywhere, but in a lot of places, is Pro Tools.
Fine, if you’re looking at composers, semi-pros and hobbyists, I’m sure a lot will choose Cubase. But if you’re looking at people who do professional post work, you’ll likely see people go where the industry currently is: Avid. Why would a “newbie” get Nuendo when the mix-stages he wants to work on have Pro Tools? The transition between the two is easier the more similar the DAWs are, so that’s why I’m saying that some things, that are either essential for workflows or very basic, are better off being “the same” from the standpoint of Steinberg gaining market share…
If your DAW is fighting not just to be an industry leader, but even to survive, then is the best strategy to do things differently which makes it more time consuming for engineers to migrate to it, or to conform to a standard?
Sorry to be a downer, but I fail to see who these industry professionals are and how it has increased market share. Don’t get me wrong, Nuendo is a fantastic product, but given all the fairly serious bugs considering that it’s a post app the notion that they’ve “worked closely with” “industry professionals” rings partially hollow.
I agree it is a fantastic but flawed product, and the impression I’ve always had is that survival, not leadership, is where Nuendo is positioned, relative to other platforms, but i don’t know anything about facts and figures on this. Initially a progressive “pro-user” offshoot of Cubase, that then tried to reinvent itself as a post environment, it has always been kinda niche, but there have also been a number of bad decisions, which wouldn’t have been made by a company obsessed with gaining market share. The Euphonix tie in helped, and I’m speculating that this offered them increased access to post industry professionals, for developmental purposes, but with Avid having swallowed that company up, where does that leave Nuendo? in terms of having a real future as a post production DAW? But if development continues, as it has done for over a decade now, surely that indicates that there are enough people out there using it to make it worth while?
It’s possible there are bigger concerns right now than solo/mute behaviour, but I agree, it would seem logical to get common features right, because if there is a genuine concern about competitors, conforming would make more sense than experimenting with new methodologies and trying to convince potential customers of their merits (in an effort to change the post world). Ultimately, I don’t have a clue what the market strategy for Nuendo is, but judging by the way they have done things to date, SB seems comfortable with it being a kinda niche big brother to Cubase that serves as a potential alternative to Pro-Tools for post production. I just hope market share moves in the right direction so they keep developing the product, but having said that, I would speculate that as long as Cubase has a solid user base, Nuendo’s development will continue.
Maybe the truth is that it is not in the interest of Steinberg or Avid to produce totally bug free software with perfect hardware (control surface) integration. If they did we would at least have the option to stop chasing the new feature carrot that has been so long in front of us and just settle for great performance of existing features. Things are undeniably better. Amazing utility. However when a pro product like Nuendo sports a totally broken mute automation system, and an equally broken and ridiculous solo system I smell a rat. It seems almost impossible to me that something so basic cannot be fixed. Since the bug primarily affects the pro user, I hereby decree that they do not fix it on purpose so we will keep upgrading in hopes it will be addressed.
Whose with me?
Good points, it’s this “stubborness” that I fear might lead to the fall, eventually…
There might be features that is exclusively implemented into the console integration rather than Nuendo as standalone app that makes it work for some “top cats” in the industry, I don’t know. I had one example with the lack of “play at half speed command”. It turned out to be an option on the Mackie control… (which I don’t have BTW)
Failing at the entry level in terms of both technical and workflow doesn’t cut it - even though there are some really inventive and cool technology in this app. Professionals do not have time to fiddle around with bugs and obvious obstacles (flaky video/aaf, solo/mute behaviour, no vca etc) for a long time. There is just too little to gain from jumping the PT ship…
Ola
I’m in the chair at a Nuendo desk probably 10 hours or more per day. I don’t work for SB and I’m not a fanboy. But all these issues are not preventing me from making a living at all. I think the idea about leaving things “broken” on purpose might be true - but I think that could backfire just as easy. Like me for example I’ve adjusted my workflow to get around issues. I need to know how a new version will change my day to day before I pay for it. No matter what avid or SB comes up with, there will be complaints and pros and con based on the individual - the reality is, the app is awesome and so is PT and anyone making a living with it is luckyto have it
Big +1 from me on this. And I am no fanboy either. I just use the app(s) to do my work.
I used to tout leaving Cubendo for PT, but now I have both so I can’t! 
I do get pissed at Steinberg from time to time and reactively think of tossing Nuendo and Cubase, but it fades by the time I wake the following day. Both grass fields are pretty green IMO, in their own ways of course. 