If you’ve ever searched for your feature request in these forums, you’ll often find that someone asked for it a decade ago, hundreds of users agreed, and yet it still hasn’t been added to our beloved program.
Even for minor additions, our pleas seem to go unheard.
Why? Because they already have us locked in.
Making us happier doesn’t significantly impact their bottom line. They also know that switching to another DAW is unlikely for most of us. As a result, our requests rank very low on their priority list.
Their focus is on acquiring new customers—a fresh revenue source and potential future upgrades. Existing customers like us? They assume we’ll upgrade anyway. And with limited development resources, they prioritize efforts that bring in new users.
This is likely why they put that (questionable) effort into redesigning the UI, even though it seems no one asked for it. (It’s possible they did it to accommodate higher-resolution monitors, but still.) They made it look more like Ableton Live, presumably to attract younger, newer customers.
This approach isn’t unusual in the software industry. However, there’s a cautionary tale Steinberg should heed: even kings can fall.
Back in the early days of desktop publishing, a program called PageMaker by Aldus practically saved the Mac from oblivion. It revolutionized publishing, rendering traditional typesetting equipment obsolete. For years, it was the industry standard.
Then came QuarkXPress, a faster, feature-rich competitor created by Tim Gill. Quark quickly became the global default for graphic design. Alongside Photoshop and Illustrator, it formed the holy trinity of design tools. If you mastered these programs, you had a career. PageMaker couldn’t keep up.
But Quark got arrogant. They treated their customers poorly, with an attitude that basically said, “Go ahead, use the competition—if you want to be seen as an amateur.” Who would switch? Quark was the standard, and workflows depended on it.
Meanwhile, Adobe purchased Aldus and entered the page layout space with InDesign. Initially, InDesign wasn’t great, lacking key features. But Adobe invested in its development and, most importantly, listened to its customers.
Over time, Adobe’s efforts paid off. Thanks to a superior product and aggressive strategy, the industry largely shifted to InDesign. Quark users dwindled.
Quark, once the arrogant industry leader, became a shadow of its former self. The leadership that fostered that toxic attitude is long gone, and today Quark is more customer-friendly and open.
But it’s too late. The damage was done.
It’s like running into someone who was wildly popular in high school but treated you like garbage—they may have changed, but you still remember how they were.
Quark’s downfall serves as a reminder: treating your dedicated user base with respect matters.
Steinberg, I’m not suggesting you implement every request we make (though communicating with us once in a while would be nice). But remember, we’re people.
There are other DAWs—both established and emerging—that want our money and are willing to work for it. Your InDesign might just be around the corner.
We’re here because we’re dedicated to your platform, but everyone has their limits.
Don’t come home from work one day to find our keys on the kitchen counter.
Interesting read and I know a bit about this first hand because in a previous lifetime, during my high school years, I worked at a print shop in the 90s, helping part-time with basic typesetting for local flyers and business cards. I remember they had both Quark and Pagemaker on their machines and did an upgrade to the new Mac G3. A couple years into this job, I remember Adobe InDesign came out and I recommended to the owner we try it. It was a bit of a struggle to deal with in its infancy, but overall I remember feeling like it was fresh and easy to use – much easier than Quark was. Indeed, as the years went by, Adobe gained market dominance (aided by all their other design-adjacent programs which could be purchased in a suite: Illustrator, Photoshop, Acrobat). It was an ideal ecosystem.
However a few issues I would take with your argument.
Many years later, now that Adobe basically pioneered the software-subscription movement with creative cloud, I would say they’ve now gotten cocky and have become their own version of Quark. Adobe no longer appears to listen to customers. And you can see their market dominance could soon be usurped by younger companies in that field, such as Affinity who make very popular alternatives to all of Adobe’s design programs. I have a buddy who is a professional graphic designer and I was surprised to learn he barely uses Adobe products anymore - now preferring to work in something called Figma. Anyway, I digress…
Back to Cubase and Steinberg. Let me offer another outsider’s perspective, as someone who has arrived late to the Steinberg ecosystem. I only first bought and used Cubase with V13, and now I’m actively using Dorico too. Prior to this, I have spent many years in: Pro Tools, Logic, and Ableton Live.
My perspective is that none of those companies (and also not Bitwig, ImageLine/FL, nor Presonus/Fender who owns StudioOne), are examples of the type of company you are imagining Adobe was with the start of InDesign. The DAW market, for what it’s worth, is comparatively over-saturated, and yet none of them really seem to have gotten it right. No one sits high atop the throne, each have numerous flaws.
For one brief example, as a former Ableton user, they didn’t have the ability to create alternate tracks until version 10 – and bussing is a nightmare. It’s fun for production but as soon as you need to do complex mixing, routing, and midi editing – trust me, the company is not interested in your feedback. I would say the same about my experience with all the DAWs. So many feature requests demanded by Logic users over the years, passed over year after year. I was stunned to learn just last year Apple finally added the ability to search plugins after a decade+ of people asking for this. ProTools adding track folders was a relatively “new” enhancement. Ableton allowing you to change clip gain directly on the clip is something they only added I think in the last release of V12 – something many DAWs have had for years. I find it comical sometimes what all of these DAW developers announce with new releases (Steinberg included) - shiny “new” features that have been around in other software for years. Overall point - the grass is always greener kind of thing.
Anyway, I will end by saying that as someone who is new to the Steinberg ecosystem, I have my share of frustrations and issues and requests – but by and large, having experienced so many other companies and their response to customer feedback, I have to say I appreciate and respect Steinberg in comparison. One is that they are clearly standing by perpetual licensing and avoiding the temptation of a subscription model; and second, I actually feel like updates since joining Steinberg are ones which generally suggest they listen. Not always, but compared to my life with Logic and PT, where updates year after year were basically bug fixes and some random toy no one needs, I do feel a positive sense that Steinberg has a dedication to the world of professional music production which I haven’t always picked up from Avid and Apple. Ableton is somewhat of a different story, their framework and philosophy is and was always geared toward live performance of electronic music, so they are far less focused on the utilitarian needs of professional mixing and composition, and for that reason and more I wouldn’t be terribly concerned Ableton (or Bitwig or FL Studio) will necessarily “take the throne” if there even was one to take.
I was wondering about that. I know that you’re able to move tracks around between the project window and the mixer, but not sure what other things have been added.
Perhaps we need a thread of what feature requests have been answered in each release (starting with 14)?
None of the ones I cared about were addressed in 13 or 14 so still on 12 Pro.
I don’t mind the subscription model, however, Adobe has been really dumb. They should make it easy to have a monthly subscription, so someone could rent it for a month then not the next month then restart it a couple of months later.
This focus on renting for the year is fine for businesses but individuals need more flexibility.
I’ve been working with the Affinity programs - they’re quite good. The publisher is lacking a few pro features but the other programs in the suite are solid.
And that is to the point. You feel Steinberg are not listening because they don’t listen to you specifically. However, and in this I agree with @mlib , Cubase 14’s bigger feature additions were all user requested. As far as I can see every single one of them. Well, maybe the StudioDelay plugin was not, as it is rather an easy mode version of the Multi Tap Delay that we already had before and not a new plugin.
@noise also pointed out that there is a lack of communication when it comes to customer demands.
I do agree. I think it is vital for a company that customers should not get the impression that their demands are not heard or being ignored. Even if that is obviously not the case as C14 takes many customer demands into account ( apart from fixing old bugs). However, if you read the forum - that is exactly how many users feel. Only occasionally you will find a response from Steinberg. Steinberg should take these sentiments more seriously. I am sure that this would be beneficial for both sides.
I have one of those old very popular Feature Requests. I didn’t know Cubase 14 had been released so I was a bit surprised when my request was marked, not ‘Solved’ but instead ‘Achieved’ - it was for the new Modulators.
I did a search and it seems like at least some requests are being implemented.
I always figure most things don’t get implemented because there is some technical difficulty or roadblock that costs more to resolve than it seems worth it. Occam’s Razor
I think this post best describes AVID and not Steinberg. I agree that there is a sensitivity towards capturing new users with easy to use shiny toys but fundamentally Cubase is a very deep programme. I think there is a fine line between efficient general workflow and pedantic personal preferences… I don’t expect any software to be able to match all the individual requests I read in this forum but perhaps the most important thing we can do is keep a positive helpful attitude that helps and encourages the development team - I can be cynical and destructive more than most but ultimately this just leads to frustration - which is just a total waste of time. and really doesn’t help anyone.
Hi @noise, I understand your frustration, but I have to disagree with your assertion. While Steinberg is FAR from perfect (and they’ve had plenty of ups and downs), I think Steinberg has been listening better than ever in recent years. And definitely better than Avid, Apple, Ableton, and sadly, Presonus IMO.
I’ll run down some things I’ve personally asked for in recent years off the top of my head. And BTW, the forum is just one channel of info for them – I know they have several channels they listen to – from direct relationships with composers, producers, studios, third party developers, various user groups (including Cubase meetups and Club Cubase hosted by Greg Ondo), trade shows, and even direct feedback forms like this one that they just posted:
(BTW, go fill out that form! They do indeed have an internal database!)
So here are some features I’ve personally asked for in recent years via different channels just for Cubase… I’m sure I’m forgetting some stuff though… and BTW, I also use WaveLab, SpectraLayers, etc., etc., and several of my requests have made it into those over the years too.
Recent Cubase features, off the top of my head:
1 - True drag and drop multi-mode perfect ripple editing like WaveLab and Reaper. NOT IMPLEMENTED YET, BUT ACKNOWLEDGED AND HOPEFULLY by C15 or C16 - Please, Steinberg, I’m still asking for this! I know it’s a big one!
2 - Modulators - IMPLEMENTED C14 - Yay! A great day for me!
3 - New score editor - IMPLEMENTED C14 - Woohoo! Rejoice! More goodness to come too! The path to the future is set! Huge! Thank you, Steinberg, and thank you to the Dorico team!
4 - Event gain/volume curves - IMPLEMENTED C14 - Finally! I’m dancing in the studio! Long-time request, thank goodness! Been asking for years!
5 - General refinements to existing workflows - IMPLEMENTED bit by bit each release, C14 saw some great stuff with range tool for example… but I can list lots of examples over the years from 10+ years ago!
6 - DAWproject - IMPLEMENTED C14 - needs some more improvements, but good start!
7 - Variable ruler track start time - IMPLEMENTED C14 - love it!
8 - Continual improvements to video engine - IMPLEMENTED over the years - keep going!
9 - Fix the dumb window handling thing on Windows - IMPLEMENTED C13 (or C14 can’t recall)
10 - ARM support - IMPLEMENTED C14! WOW WOW WOW faster and better than expected!
11 - Linux support - NOT IMPLEMENTED, AND MAYBE NEVER, BUT I STILL ASK!
12 - E-core support - IMPLEMENTED C12 (might have been C13, can’t remember) - they were right up there with Reaper on speed of implementation, impressive!
13 - More improvements in MIDI editor - IMPLEMENTED C14 and more over the years - rather good stuff in C14 specifically though, but C13 saw good stuff too…
14 - Overhaul Articulation Management!!! NOT IMPLEMENTED YET But I have high hopes this will come soon in C15 or C16 – lots of prepwork for MIDI 2.0 has been happening behind the scenes, so I anticipate MIDI 2.0 is directly connected to their articulation management roadmap!
15 - Evolution and prep work toward MIDI 2.0 - KNOWN IN DEVELOPMENT
16 - Return of Steinberg vocoder - IMPLEMENTED C13 - they had to take it away for various reasons in the past, but finally brought it back. Was a small ask back in the day, and I have plenty of vocoders now, but it’s a welcome addition to see it return. Was obviously a hole they wanted to plug.
17 - Track versions on video tracks - IMPLEMENTED C13
18 - Mono/stereo button no duh feature - IMPLEMENTED C13
19 - DP-like “Chunks” feature and/or Reaper-like “Subprojects” feature - NOT IMPLEMENTED - I know these are actually huge requests that will take a long time, so I’m realistic about it. I doubt they will happen any time soon. BUT I hope little workflow features that help in those directions will continue to come in C15, C16, etc…
I’ll stop here… The list (for me) goes on and on over the years… these are off the top of my head of recent stuff, and C14 was frankly jam-packed with things I personally asked for, plus some other good stuff I didn’t expect. And sure, there are things that I still want!
Again, Steinberg is far from perfect, and they’ve had plenty of ups and downs, but there are some BIG TICKET items that they have clearly been working on for years that are the direct result of people asking for them in one channel or another.
It’s true that the forum itself can be messy and difficult to properly judge what Steinberg’s priorities are, but that is in part because Steinberg does have a culture of secrecy about their roadmap, and I get it if you want them to be more transparent. I prefer transparency myself. But this is how they operate right now, and it’s evident (to me) that they ARE listening, especially in recent years.
They obviously are long-term planners, and have a big hit list of stuff they are working on over the years, but yet they still need to prioritize each cycle to make decisions of where to allocate resources. Some things will obviously get bumped… So can they still improve? You bet they can. But compared to the other industry leaders, I’d say Steinberg is currently in the top group of developers that are listening, judging by Cubase 14 alone. Maybe Cubase 13 not as much, but consider they were likely spending huge resources on the score editor alone, and it obviously wasn’t ready for Cubase 13. So not every release will have such big ticket items… The score editor alone is a multi-year beast, and now we finally have it, with more to come.
Anyway, I get it if your personal feature requests haven’t made it in, and you feel they are ignoring you. I am confident that they are listening, but they have limited resources and so whatever their priority list is right now, I hope something you want is on that list. To make more noise, I suggest participating in more channels with Steinberg… like take the survey and tune in to Greg Ondo’s thing and ask questions, etc…
For me, right now, I’m still hoping for drag-and-drop ripple editing ASAP, above all other features, and of course an overhaul of articulation management, but I believe those are eventually coming. I’ve been asking for years. Now that the new score editor is finally launched, I’m hoping that can go into “incremental mode” and some more resources can be moved to ripple editing and MIDI 2.0 stuff!
This can be literally said about every DAW out there - S1, Live, Bitwig, Reason, etc. I’ve not used Logic and couldn’t care less about Reaper - maybe it’s different there.
So, I agree. But simultaneously there’s not much one can do about it
Exactly!
The bigger issue that I have with Cubase is they basically don’t do point updates with new / expanded features, like every other DAW does. Which means I’ll have to probably wait to v15+ for them to “fix” the modulators and patterns.
I would guess that is true with any DAW developer. I think the reason “hundreds” have not been added usually comes down to resources. Unless you know the code built upon code, some functions or features may be very difficult or costly to implement. Even a tiny on/off switch somewhere can be difficult. And neither you or I know the code.
I cringe when I read about the know-it-all 40-year career IT guy who says it’s simple to implement when they are not working from the inside. I’m pretty sure Steinberg is looking for smart people to work for them. Oops…you don’t like Steinbergs compensation? Well, as an end user, should they raise their prices to attract better people?
None of us are locked in. Changing may be painful, drawn out due to old projects etc, but none of us are actually locked in. Stop exaggerating.
How do you know where user requests rank on their priority list? Are you aware requests and functions come from many different user groups and this forum is just one aspect of many correct? You are aware film composers are very different than EDM users right?
Is there a DAW developer that does not appear to prioritize new users? Even beyond DAWs, it seems attention is given to attracting new users. Look at the 1st 10 years of Native Instruments. They have practically abandoned what they achieved in their 1st 10 years. Reaktor is for a small nerd club. Screw Brian Clevinger Absynth. Follow the prosumer money.
I too used to feel the same about communication. However it seems in this forum, I read improved communication than in prior years from Steinberg representatives. IMO, not all Steinberg employees in the past have done a good job in the different forums. But the ones I’m thinking of are no longer employed or contracted with Steinberg.
Also, and most importantly, communication between developer and user, especially DAW developer is a double edged sword. This isn’t an open Reaper paradigm. The DAW market is very competitive, and secrets are important and guarded. There are NDAs. It’s a balance. Sometimes a feature intended for release doesn’t make it on time. You want a company representative to mislead you? You want a company representative to get fired because they accidentally let something slip out? Wouldn’t you error on the safe side when your job is on the line?
If you get the feeling Steinberg representatives don’t read this forum, you are wrong. If you get the feeling they don’t communicate enough, consider what I wrote above. Keep in mind forum feedback and requests are just part of a much bigger development picture.
In that case stay on Cubase 12. Or create work-arounds if possible. For myself taking advantage of the LE, PLE, Macros, Workspaces, and implementing all this Metagrid has put my customized Cubase on steroids. Room for improvement? Absolutely! Thinking the grass is greener without Control Room, and what I wrote above? Not for me.
Hardly anyone mentions my favorite #1 new feature in Cubase14. (EDIT: it’s the new open/close inserts function) Everyones user case is different. Sure you get general agreements, and I’m confident Steinberg is are very aware of those.
For me, it would be interesting to see all these requests that are over 10 years old and are still not implemented.
We both agree on this one. However you have 99 more to go and my guess is some along the way would disagree.
I haven’t read the proceeding threads, but it would be out of character for Steinberg to actively or proactively communicate regarding each and every feature request, since as a company they are more interested in bugs and have their own feature roadmap, with interests pertaining well outside of this forum.
I have at least one ongoing gripe, since from when Autoscroll Suspend was first introduced and while I would rather have the feature than none at all, I have myself made many posts about it so whether or not they may be considered duplicates is not here nor there as our often very long posts bring about awareness, which is a very important thing because as a creative platform, the software itself is always a work in progress.
Another thing I will say, I am loving the V13/14 product cycle, since one very important feature was introduced, namely Visibility in the Key Editor., which I was harping on about for years and guess what, the powers that be saw sense and implemented it, and it is a fantastic feature that exists in no other DAW, so I am quite happy being “locked in” because as a composer that one feature alone has changed my workflow for the better.
P.S. No one is technically locked in, now because of DAWProject file compatibility.
and really doesn’t help anyone.