As counter to this would you like me to link you to the many and varied threads, some over a decade old, describing workflow-killing issues in great detail with clear full reproduction steps that have had absolutely no response from anyone at Steinberg? That’s what we’re talking about
Fully relatable
I don’t know how many of you have created background fx and music for the theatre.
There’s an idea often attributed to David Mamet that goes well beyond acting.
When the lead actor steps onto the stage, they’re implicitly saying: “I’m the one you should be watching.” The audience immediately asks, consciously or not: “Are we going to like you?”
The weakest response is a silent plea for approval. Trying to earn favor before doing anything to deserve it. That instinct kills authority.
The stronger response is indifference to the question. Not arrogance, but grounded self-possession. “I don’t know if you’ll like me, and I don’t care.”
Mamet pointed to actors shaped by harder experiences, men like Gene Hackman or Lee Marvin. They weren’t performing for approval. They simply occupied the space. You could accept them or reject them, but they weren’t asking.
The same principle applies to leadership.
Picture a CEO of an audio software company walking into a room. No slides yet, no pitch. Just presence. They’re saying, without saying it: “This is the direction. This is what matters.”
Everyone else, investors, employees, users, is running the same calculation: “Should I believe in this?”
The weakest move is chasing approval. Over-explaining, over-promising, trying to be liked. It signals that the leader is calibrating to the room rather than setting the frame.
The stronger move is conviction. “You may or may not agree. This is the path.” That stance creates clarity. People know where the center of gravity is.
The best founders in audio and creative software aren’t building tools to please everyone. They’re building toward a specific vision of sound, workflow, and experience. That focus attracts the right people and repels the wrong ones. Which is exactly the point.
If the CEO is constantly asking, “Will they like this?” the product becomes generic. If the CEO operates from, “This is what we stand for,” the product gains character.
I liked Timos answer. And he did not say ‘N’o to subscription.
Oh my.
This sounds much like the “world leadership”-slop you hear these days from the new breed of Silicon Valley-tech bros and other people with that unbearable “masters-of-the-universe”-attitude. I do not relate. Thanks - but no, thanks.
I believe that communication should work both directions.
That’s the point
Only if the “workflow-killing issues” apply to and impede day to day operation of 100% of the user base.
If any particular issue is with 116 guys out of the 1.5 million users worldwide…..not interested in hearing about it 
How about if it is 90% and 85% of the work-week?
wtf?
Fortunately you can ignore literally every issue-thread that has a described issue that you are not experiencing, since you are a part of the 100%.
Sorry man, I appreciate many of your posts but this one is just looks bonkers.
We’re not talking about some artists expressing themselves, we’re talking about creating a product that’s being sold not just to consumers, but to a lot of consumers that are conducting business-to-business operations.
“Liking” someone has nothing to do with this. Neither does “authority”. Stuff has to work. It’s that simple. If it doesn’t customers just go somewhere else.
I hope I’m misunderstanding what your point is.
Of course the product has to work. That’s baseline. If it doesn’t, nothing else matters and the market corrects it immediately. No disagreement there.
But once you clear that threshold, you’re no longer competing on “does it function.” You’re competing on why this product exists the way it does,how it’s shaped, what it prioritizes. In audio software, that shows up in workflow, sound design philosophy, UI tradeoffs, and constraints. Those decisions come from conviction, not consensus.
That’s the distinction I’m making. Not about being liked. About not building by committee.
A strong leader commits to a direction and accepts that it won’t satisfy everyone. The right users align with it. That’s where trust comes from.
Where I’m cautious is on my side, not theirs.
If the direction involves something like a long-term subscription shift or delayed payoff, I need clarity. I have immediate requirements. I can’t operate on a 2027 or 2028 promise. I have to choose tools that work for me now.
So I’m not rejecting the vision. I’m saying there’s an information gap. If that gap is closed and the direction makes sense, I’ll align with it. If not, I’ll choose based on present needs.
Conviction is fine. But users still have timelines.
Isn’t life great that way?
For sure, on the www, even I have posted various issues on various product workflows over the eons to which no replies came in. Not sure if ever on Cubendo unless really really early Nuendo days when Fredo was the mod.
What I find is that it ultimately didn’t matter as I found solutions/workable workarounds to incorporate into the flow. And man, I’m on deadlines like many.
The takfat topic fascinates me, even though I’m not affected. I love to keep up with that for the information presented.
I often also have momentary passing interest on topics where guys with 4000 audio tracks are pained over dropouts. Or even guys with 40 tracks and dropouts…..although I’m not affected and understand full well why I’m not affected. But I read those too.
haha…..you mean as in studies conducted by a guy somewhere have shown that 68% of the userbase never post on forums but of the 32% who do, it’s the case that 47% of the time, 72% of issue xyz userbase are ok with issue xyz 15% of the week, but the exact days/times vary?
But that business still has to operate on earth, in reality. If 95% of users say “Sayonara” and leave for a different product then you’re left with 5% “right users” that have no product because the company folds because the business model was crap, despite being a “strong leader”. Sometimes “strong” = “stubborn”, and that is not necessarily a good thing.
Having said that, if your point is just that a company like Avid waffled around and created an environment where users didn’t know what to expect and started hating on the company for that reason then of course I agree with you. And I agree with the idea that we need information and a vision so we can plan according to our needs. I think that’s pretty much what many of us have been saying.
Staying on hypothetical percentages……there are historical sayings that I don’t quite remember verbatim from successful businesses that state you don’t spend more than 5% of your time on issues coming from 8% of your customerbase. Your focus goes to the 92%.
And….the squeeky wheel isn’t always the one getting the grease.
It may be that Steinberg has become more profitable each year. Only Yamaha & Steinberg know the numbers.
One can catastrophize “lookie, this continually unanswered issue on the forums will sink this company because they aren’t listening to us”…..
Not an entirely useful conclusion imo.
And it wasn’t what I was saying.
Look, you clearly don’t care about what some of us are voicing as legitimate concerns, and I told you that you could ignore that, yet here you are. So I’ll just ignore what you have to say for now since you really don’t care anyway. That way I’ll help you by helping me not responding to what you write sine you don’t want to see my replies anyway, despite replying (which is odd).
I must say I do find the Q-Link function so clumsy. Surely everything in a folder could be automatically linked with a simple icon on the folder tab? The way Studio One does it is perfect.
When lit (blue icon) everything in the folder can be soloed, muted, record enabled etc, oh and swipe comped across all tracks too….
I just want to say, I’ve been a Cubase user since 1999. Haven’t missed a single update since 2008, and cross-graded to Nuendo two years ago. I also use and regularly update Wavelab, Dorico and SpectralLayers. I am, essentially, a super-subscriber, I genuinely love all these pieces of software, despite the features I would like them to add.
The day Steinberg introduces subscription in either of these I’m out.
I say, to anyone who cares about the software, keep an open mind.
A subscription model, may mean more features.
As for the communication, or lack thereof, I hear about all of these long forgotten bugs, but has anyone created a web page, discussing these, that is if they are of such great importance?
I ask this, since I have my own website, and I canvass and discuss issues on a per-page basis, none of this confusing mess of competing and contending threads, with trolling and misadventure.
If someone were to create a page, or (prefereably) pages covering any and all issues, by the time Steinberg go to a (partial) Subscription Model, then they will have all of the information needed to move forward, and in effect backwards, to rectify some long standing bugs.
It would seem to be a bit of a problem, when a person uses a software package for so many different reasons, yet comes unstuck over one or more issues, and while Steinberg could be accused of not managing the situation effectively, if it is not being brought up in an effective way, of course, things will be put on the back burner, it’s human nature at the very least.
I don’t personally have time to collate issues, and one can argue that the forum is for this purpose but I am sure that the userbase on the whole can put up some funds for a website and domain, and create pages for specific issues, possibly with moderated comments so that there is a clear indication of what needs to be looked at.
I say this because moving to a Suscription Model, is a big step and we as users, developers and staff, must all move forward together.
There once was a list of issues that was maintained by a forum user. @Johnny_Moneto knows more details about it if I am not mistaken (I hope you don’t mind me tagging you).
With regard to a subscription model:
I didn’t read the initial post like it was something that is seriously discussed at Steinberg HQ. To me, it sounded like a hypothetical option that was brought up as a mere possibility in this thread. Nothing more, nothing less. I think that Steinberg has done some proper research to check if this is a viable option at all. Other competitors have lost clients and credibility by introducing a subscription model in the past. I am convinced that Steinberg will be very cautious before even putting such an option on the table. They have been steering the ship steadily over the past decades and I believe they will do so in the future. Of course, there’s room for improvement. We all know.
Nah, I also know the numbers.
I don’t mind at all. The topic that kept track of many bugs is no longer maintained for a couple of years already. Nobody saw a point in investing a lot of work for virtually no gain.