Agreed.
There are several things the Dorico team are excelling at. It puzzles me at times as it feels like the Cubendo team doesn’t wish to follow suit.
2 Likes
I wonder if the lack of an all-inclusive list of bug-fixes has to do with Steinberg not wanting their software to give off the impression of being “buggy”. Just a thought.
Except their lack of communication is making them look like Bandlab. Keep their users in the dark and when answers are given, they’re either vague or non-answers.
2 Likes
I’m not so sure that the times I’ve spent reproducing and/or detailing odd behaviors would be a better impression than a list of known and fixed problems.
Discovering an issue is fixed and having that fix reintroduce previous problems or problem that indicate insufficient regression testing also don’t create a great impression.
Your assertion is certainly a plausible “excuse”. Just offering that if “impressions” are important, the impression that customers time in discovering, documenting, and reporting bugs is worthy of tracking status openly.
3 Likes
100% in agreement here. I was simply speculating about their potential frame of mind on this matter. I definitely don’t support the lack of an all-inclusive list of bug-fixes with each release.
But at least showcases that something is being done.
2 Likes
A DAW as complex and rich as Cubase/Nuendo will always show a certain level of issues. This comes with the territory multiplied by ever-changing setups, systems and 3rd party components involved. Nobody expects perfection.
I don’t think Steinberg is trying to cover up a reality that every software has to face. Maybe, it has something to do with the general spirit as @mlib implied. The new Dorico team seems to have a different mindset and attitude when it comes to communication. Hopefully, this will have a positive effect on other teams as well over time. Like @uarte pointed out in various posts: There are already promising signs for a new company spirit.
Coming back to the topic: Transparent and complete release notes would be a step in the right direction.
2 Likes
It seems that Steinberg wants to keep it “old school”:
- Info set to minimum. Just the feature list (even that before they’re giving full list of changes)
- No support (it gives impression of non-existing when reading comments online)
- No official online representation, no PR people, forum, groups, whatever
They want to be that faceless company like in the 90s and before. They hide behind “user-only-driven forum” and some youtubers which are mostly here to promote their products.
Maybe they’re influenced by Yamaha and Japanese style of running a business? Just a thought, I have no idea of course.
Overall, I’m not sure if this is the best decision by the fact that these days companies are way more transparent than in the past and they have a representation online, PR, forums, groups etc. And it’s going like that since over a decade. It seems to work and it’s what customers want.
2 Likes
Indeed! Many signs, in fact, I believe there is something of an internal “tide” shifting inside Steinberg, but we’ll see how it pans out in the coming years. Tides come in, tides go out. Who knows where the momentum is. I think it’s positive, but I could be wrong. Keep in mind Steinberg is a conservative company, they don’t seem to want to “rock the boat” in terms of making major changes quickly because of one obvious reason: They are still in business and have been more or less stable for years. Why mess around with a working formula? (Unless internal data is suggesting new trends and their old formula is having issues…)
It does work, at least from outward appearances, and it adds gravity to their “conservative” model of business. The proof is the fact they haven’t been disrupted significantly like so many other DAW developers by certain kinds of financial turmoil in the market resulting in subscription models, corporate mergers/buyouts, equity investment, shifting development costs to cheaper labor markets, etc…
HOWEVER, I do see an interesting change that recently happened that we should all take note of… which is that Steinberg discontinued their hardware interfaces and they have been rebranded as Yamaha audio interfaces.
Very, very interesting. I don’t have inside information about why they did that, but clearly there is a branding shift that is rolling out. How deep does that go? Only the top brass knows for sure. And how that might impact things down the line for us is worth watching. Changes MIGHT be afoot. This could be the beginning of that.
Looking forward to 2026! Cheers!
Now back to the normal thread!
1 Like
It should not be forgotten that Steinberg is already a subsidiary of Yamaha Corporation (Japan). Yamaha owns and supports Steinberg and probably also has the final say in business decisions.
If anything, one could argue they were worse when they were acquired by Yamaha.
Yikes, I for sure disagree with this. Been with them through decades, through many ups and downs, and there is no way they are worse now than before Yamaha. Yes, it was rough for a bit, but blame Pinnacle. Stuff had to be fixed. They sent in someone from Yamaha if I recall. If anything, Yamaha gave them the space to evolve into what they are now, and it’s been over 20 years since the Yamaha acquisition anyway. They’ve weathered the storms of the last several years of industry transformation, they should get a lot of credit for that. Pinnacle was a mess BTW IMO.