From a recent survey on VI-C, it seems that Logic users are not much fewer than Cubase users. Maybe you can also consider integration with Logic during the development? Obviously, not things where Apple is the only one that can deal with the software, but where common ground may exist (sync, file exchange…).
Paolo
I took the survey as i am very interested in integrating Cubase and Dorico.I really hope that even some kind of basic sync (like rewire or ARA) is in the works. Of course a fuller integration is a dream come true because Dorico is much more capable than the current score editor in C10, which is sufficient for editing but not for scoring.
I just hope (maybe needless to say) that you’ll also add greater syncing for those of us who use other DAWs (such as Logic, which is pretty prominent for media scoring needless to say). Even Rewire would of course be nice.
Best!
Yes indeed … that would be greatly appreciated.
I’m kind of curious about the results of the poll, maybe Steinberg can post a summary at some point, that would be interesting.
I kind of had hoped for two open-ended questions:
You would have gotten as many different answers as people taking the poll. 
Absolutely, just one “Suite” where you have one program. If they make it, then Logic and Co are “history.”
I mentioned before 1 program with different options, lite, pro, whatever. I find myself constantly importing and exporting, and although I have a Steinberg UR22 soundcard, most of the time I won´t get sound on both running parallel, then again hours fixing the “driver issue”.
Granted, probably a big job for the programmers, but the whole music industry/and individual musicians on the planet would be thankful.
I´m ready to put in the extra bucks to have the “Suite”.
There´s a Spanish old saying: “se cae de maduro”, meaning the idea is so much common sense, so “ripe”, that it falls from the tree by itself.
The OP has thrown folk a little off course with the choice of topic title.
I read a post by John Barron on the Facebook Public Group page, in effect saying there is no integration (combining) of the apps planned.
So the key word is ‘inter-operability’, not integration.! The survey is trying to find out how the two stand-alone apps could work better alongside each other, to fulfill different needs/workflows.
A lot of folk would love to see some kind of ‘dynamic sync’ of transport/editing (which sounds a lot like ReWire - but I know the team have already dismissed that as a protocol they’d actively support). Don’t know if that’ll happen. I guess we’re certainly going to see some more flavours of ‘Export To…’, ‘Open With…’ or similar type options; the least I’m saying is, some enhanced file/project sharing workflow between the two…
Whatever, for me this is NOT about working towards some of Dorico’s Engraving options appearing in Cubase, nor Cubase’s MIDI editing tools inside Dorico, for example.
Bob
Matthias’s post mentioned interoperability from the start and Daniel’s post earlier in the thread has fleshed out a few more details.
Being wholly ignorant about both programming and programnming terminology, I reached for Google.
Integration refers to connecting applications so that data from one system can be accessed by the other one. … Interoperability is real-time data exchange between systems without middleware.
… and frankly I’m none the wiser 
Ok, indeed… thanks David; in that case, that is interesting… and I’m not sure what I’m talking about anymore…
Back to lurking mode…
I can’t comment on Wikipedia’s definitions, but I can tell you what we mean when we use those terms. We mean “interoperability” to mean exchange of data without the two applications being directly connected, while “integration” would mean technology from one application being built directly into the other, or running the two applications together in real time.
Well, I´m sure the idea will linger in their “creative” minds, and hearts. Just “one Suite” is the answer in “my score”.
Anyway, in the meantime, I´m humbly waiting, and hopefully, the “new patch” brings at least sound on both running side by side flawlessly, which is not quite the case now, even using Steinberg’s UR22.
I bet someday in the future we will see just one Steinberg App. These people are real nerds, and smart, and kind enough, to listen to their friends and customers.
All the best…and btw. love bot apps.
The “one size fits all” solution isn’t the optimal solution, though, because one size doesn’t fit all. I don’t have any use for a DAW (at least at the moment; never say never), so one huge jack-of-all-trades application would just be a waste of money and resources. However, one could get some inspiration from the folks at Serif that have created an integrated solution for their different applications where you switch to a “vector mode” in Affinity Publisher (a DTP program) and it’s switching seamlessly to Affinity Designer (vector editor) – if you have installed it, that is; and if not, that functionality just isn’t there but you can still use the one program for its purpose entirely.
But I did not mean a “one fits all”.They could tailor the suites accordingly, some will go all the way, with the full pro version, others lite Dorico, heavy Cubase, others vice versa…I mean, originally Cubase was exactly that, except there were Finale and Sibelius, much better for notation than the Cubase notation. But now, in comes Dorico, better than all 3 together, belonging to guess who: Steinberg. So it just renders the Cubase notation obsolete, but leaves you with a weak Player in Dorico…at least compared to the DAW functions of Cubase…It makes sense whichever way you slice it…and for the programmers, granted, after the massive job merging them…easier to maintain.
I would say it would be a lot harder to maintain.
If you wanted to update one local feature, you would now have to coordinate that across the whole product line, including documentation, internationalization, beta testing, etc.
In fact there is an example of an update that affects the entire Steinberg product line going on right now - the eLicencer replacement project. I don’t think anybody wants every Steinberg software update to take as long as that one!
The premise is surely that by having products that work together more seamlessly, it makes BOTH Cubase and Dorico more attractive.
And while there certainly would be some ongoing effort in maintaining the interoperability, one hopes that much of this should be subsumed into an architecture that allows the participating products to progress independently. That isn’t a pipe dream. That is exactly what has happened with VST protocol, Rewire, and even MIDI itself.
Concha wasn’t asking for products that work together more seamlessly, but “just one product”. There’s a big practical difference IMO.
Of course “products that work together more seamlessly” has got to be A Goode Thyngge.
I’m not sure that I want a suite - if it comes at the expense of not expanding or completing some of the Play tab functionality. Can anyone comfort my fears?
Plus there are many of us who don’t use Cubase and never plan to switch (I’m guessing the majority of Dorico DAW users but may be wrong) and who would be happy just for a bit more compatibility generally with DAWs but for Dorico’s development otherwise to be focused more on own, individual progress, etc…
D.D.
Whatever kind of interoperability or integration comes in the future for Dorico and Cubase, it will not change our primary design goals for Dorico, which include being able to produce a workable mock-up using virtual instruments and effects directly from your Dorico project, without needing to move into Cubase. There are still plenty of things we expect and plan to add in Play mode, regardless of how we collectively decide to bring Dorico and Cubase closer together in the future.
Thank you Daniel!
This is somewhat baffling. By “workable” mockup, do you mean a Play mode with basic functionality that is satisfactory for an amateur, or a Play mode that has all the Midi editing capability needed to create professional level mockups, like for tv and film? Creating these kinds of mockups requires a lot of Midi capability which DAWs like Cubase have in spades. If the former is the goal, makes sense to build out a limited Play mode, but if the latter, why would you reinvent the wheel when your own product, Cubase, already has all the tools and is an industry standard for doing just this kind of thing?