I am afraid it went like this. Yamaha bought Steinberg to make Cubase the master controller for external hardware. That isn’t really the way to do things and multiprocessing is eliminating the advantage of external hardware if it is done right. Yamaha recognized this a while back and is now just milking Cubase by turning out updates that don’t really fix anything and I think are contributing to the decay of the program but Yamaha is just trying to cut its losses. When people quit buying updates, they will drop Cubase.
I love this stuff. The Donald Trump effect (or Boris Johnson if you prefer). An age where easy internet access and the potential democratisation of communication ends up being used by people who, as Manike says, feel entitled to spew any and all sorts of baseless assertion and hyperbole. And sh*t, frankly.
It’s almost like the OP’s doing it to make me unhappy unporpose
Steinberg has always pushed their software to do more than others - and for the most part… it does. Studio One was able to be built from scratch based off the things Cubase accomplished, without having to worry about things like backwards compatibility.
This stuff is not simple to code, it’s not just the GUI that you see put together like paper and glue.
Cubase is by far, still the best combined audio editor and midi arranger DAW on the market. There are lots of other programs, but they usually are lacking on one side of that coin whether it be the audio side or the MIDI side.
People wanted things like scale-able GUI that never existed in the program before and programs that had already implemented newer GUI coding and graphics were able to do so when the technology already existed before or just as their program was coming to fruition.
They’ve pretty well been fully redeveloping the program from the ground up starting around version 8, but v10, I’m pretty sure, is re-re-built. It’s not a simple task to complete that much code across multiple OS’, and be able to release something within a years time to keep the user base engaged, and to also make profit to continue continue development - They can’t wait 5 years to make the program perfect to make money.
Which other DAW, has attempted to change and develop as much as Steinberg does? Steinberg has not stopped aggressive development since day one, no other company has been this aggressive with development. They’ve pretty much already caught up feature wise simultaneously to multiple competing DAWs, not completely… but they’re on the cusp… and those competitors haven’t come close to incorporating features unique to Cubase.
For the record, I am a Software Developer and didn’t start in this field a couple of years ago. I’ve been doing it for years and ANY PRO-SOFTWARE DEVELOPER KNOWS that it is a no no and totally against professional code ethics to break code in the name of advancing a program forward.
Notwithstanding that there is no such thing as a “perfect” program without any bugs; however, that is why there is a comprehensive QA component in every professional development life cycle. That component “ENSURES” that no prior code is broken in the advent of introducing new features. If it does, then the code doesn’t and should not go to production.
That said, the fact that Steinberg continuously breaks pre-existing features while rushing new code out wreaks a serious lack of Quality Assurance and in doing so it displaces the sense of dis-trust in its customers that they are being proactively attentive to produce a quality product.
No one in their right and common sense mind can possibly see the value of ANY PRODUCT over another by the number of new things it brings to the table while breaking the functionality of other things. THAT is totally ludicrous. So if you or anyone else seriously believes that because a company pushes their software to do more than others (at the expense of quality and integrity) then you are truly the next generation of supporters that the company with thrive on. Because you don’t think things through from a practical standpoint.
I’d personally opt to invest in something that is stable and reliable than go cutting edge at the sake of loosing solid functionality for a program that I rely on to perform work. On the other hand, if you’re just playing around exploring neat features and not really relying on a solid platform; I suppose I can see where it wouldn’t really make of a difference.
Again, we’re not talking about new bugs that manage to get past testing (if that is in fact the case). Folks that are complaining are speaking of issues for the most part that break code that was previously working. There is a big significant difference.
I’m all for the latest and greatest; but that is what beta testing is for. You don’t force folks to upgrade and pay for beta testing. PERIOD.
So its not a rant per say; it is a fact. Live with it or ignore it but don’t defend it.
Says the coders of Microsoft Windows, Apple, every video game ever released, ever phone os, every phone app, web browser??? When has software not been buggy? Did I miss a decade? What software developers are you talking about? Which code did Steinberg intentionally break to advance the program?
There are plenty of programs that are stable, that have never advanced. And then there are programs that never advanced for such a long time that they became unstable because they became obsolete.
There are plenty of versions of Cubase that are stable, you don’t HAVE to use Cubase 10. I don’t get it.
And as a coder, you should know that there are an impossible amount of variables to contend with. the variables of User operating system, what GPU they are using on what motherboard with which ever processor, running an un-updated version of Windows 7, running which plugins, how much RAM. When a new program or software is released, the initial release is pretty much the beta test for all these variables.
When a thread like this starts, it doesn’t take long for the phrase “I am a software developer” to enter the conversation.
This leads me to assume that:
A) most people on this planet are now software developers!
B) they are not very good at their job!
Why B? Because it would appear that they don’t factor in their own computer set up as a factor in the efficiency of software they are using?
I won’t post again because I am getting fed up with this type of nonsense, but I want to reiterate, I HAVE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE WITH CUBASE SOFTWARE!
I started on LE4 and I’m now on Pro 10, so am I a software developer as well, and a good one at that?
Perhaps you didn’t take into consideration that you don’t have a problem because you likely don’t use or ever have had need for the features that are broken? I mean, everyone that is complaining about broken things aren’t making this stuff up. But if you don’t have an issue, KUDOS to you. That’s great but it doesn’t suffice for those of us who do. So don’t be pompous thinking everyone else who has legit issues are ranting for no reason.
Oh, and btw. I’ve been developing software for 20+ years so stick around long enough and you’ll get it.
Obviously your discontent with my perfectly logical statement clouded your response. In case you missed it I did mention that “NO” software is without bugs. But I also said you don’t “Break” pre-existing functionality (which if you know ‘ANYTHING’ about proper development and SDLC Principles is a given and perfectly legit principle). No professional developer who takes their work seriously would ever attempt to debate and argue such a point. If you were a developer for any corporation and made a statement like that you’d be terminated.
Obviously, and I’d say about 3 or 4 to be exact.
First off, I’m not a coder; I’m a professional Software Engineer. I’ve come to associate that term “coder” with younger developers who have a certain mindset of what they believe development is but lacking years of experience. (Full Disclosure: I say this in general, as I know of many young sharp minded developers)
But again, read the post in proper context. You are correct, every time new code is released there is most definitely chance of issues. That is a given with consideration of everything you just mentioned. But you don’t BREAK PRE-EXISTING FUNCTIONALITY in the process. That is my point. Every major corporation I’ve worked for makes a proactive effort to ensure that prior stable functionality is NOT BROKEN prior to consideration of release to the public. The fact that this happens over and over again wreaks serious lack of that process. If you don’t get that, then I’m sorry.
Yes, even Microsoft. I’ve known on few occasions where things have slipped through to the public but Microsoft jumped on fixing their mishap immediately for the instances I’ve known it to happen. Why? Because they know their patrons have already paid for that working functionality and you don’t screw over your patrons.
If it happens periodically and infrequently, I think most folks are fairly forgiving; myself included. But not consistently.
That is the single most absolute ridiculous statement you could have possibly made and IF you are a developer; I wouldn’t repeat that on the job in the presence of competent authorities or you may just find yourself looking for another job. Software is revenue. It is considered a ROI of time and effort; and the mindset of “pretty much releasing” a piece of potential revenue to the public with the expectation that the public is “Paying” to be beta testers? You need to think your statements through because they are totally unreasonable and make no sense
Exactly, I agree TOTALLY with you on that. And THAT is my point. In my particular case, I was totally good with Cubase 9 although there were similar complaints during that version as well. The only reason I was good with version 9 was because none of the interface that I leveraged on a daily basis was broken. It was fully functional. (Adding, “For me”)
I upgraded to 9.5 for 2 reasons.
To take advantage of newly introduced features (Who would’t?)
To exemplify my continued support for the work that Steinberg was doing (It does take money to maintain a software product)
But they broke several prior working components in the process which disrupted my workflow. I could’ve downgrade back to 9 but knowing that most companies attempt to quickly address issues that break prior code fairly quick via hot fixes; I remained on 9.5 going through updates waiting on the issue to be addressed. It never was. Furthermore, why should I have downgraded from 9.5? I already paid for it didn’t I? Do you think Steinberg would refund the money I’d already given for a downgrade? Psssh. They’d laugh at you if you made such a request.
So yeah, I don’t need to upgrade to Cubase 10; So what? I paid for an upgrade to Cubase 9.5 so screw me and my concerns. Let’s move on??
Do you think it fair if you were in a similar position for a company to expect you to pay to “pretty much be a beta tester” for their next version of a program while they leave you with their prior version that they broke??? Come on man, be real. THINK
Dude who are you? How long do you want to keep quoting each other about absolutely nothing. Nothing here is being discussed, you are just aimlessly arguing and using your prestigious software developer self accreditation as legitimacy points but we’re just going back and forth not actually saying anything… we can just keep quoting watch this…
It wasn’t - perfectly - logical and my statement wasn’t clouded - I didn’t miss anything, I was merely pointing out your self-contradictions because it wasn’t clear whether you actually were aware of them or if you just chose to blatantly intentionally disregard yourself in favor of having an opinion and being angry at Steinberg…
Which statement would I be terminated for? The statement that we both made and recognize which is, bugs are a reality of ‘software development’?
Cool story, have a medal. So what software have you professionally engineered? Tell us, surely whatever microcosm of software development you’ve professionally engineered in has somehow magically downloaded all knowledge of every corner of all existing software development fields and every single variable of the industry into your brain because you are a professional software engineer who has professionally developed software and you are here on the Steinberg forums informing us about it.
That’s what bugs do, they break pre-existing functionality… like, huh? You are saying, “yes, all new software has bugs, but you don’t break pre-existing functionality”. You are asserting that Steinberg intentionally broke pre-existing functions by intentionally releasing buggy software?? I don’t get it…
Microsoft and Apple… have you ever used the original iMac g3?? Sometimes? Sometimes??Sometimes??? I have downloaded OS update to android phones that nuked the phone and rendered it useless and unfixable - how’s that for breaking previous functionality
What is ridiculous is your refusal to acknowledge reality outside of the software development tyranny in your brain and misconstruing my statements and observations of said reality as personal lectures on what I think key software development protocol and ethic is so that you then have reason to imply that I’m an unintelligible wreck thus making yourself feel like a professional software engineer who knows everything.
You do realize Steinberg usually releases fixes fixes for previous versions even after releasing a new major version update right? So no, you don’t have to upgrade to 10. You can downgrade to 9, and your 9.5 upgrade will still give you a cost reduction on whatever next version you do upgrade to and if you don’t…? You chose to upgrade, anyone who is a professional who works with professional software in any field - knows there is a risk to upgrading anything. Whether you are in avionics programming the F35 (read up on that software dev nightmare) or working in a small studio.
We’ve successfully continued to talk about absolutely nothing.
First off, I’m not your “Dude” and secondly; You’re an Idiot. So consider this my last and final reply. I don’t speak to the company of ignorance. I made a point, you attempted to counter it and I called you out on it. So in your effort of retaliation and attempting to make good on your mis-assessments of what I initially stated;you want to try to sound intelligent but you sound stupid.
Go get a real life if you can’t speak intelligently to the points. If you had some legitimate points, I’d listen and I did in fact acknowledge them. However, I also disagreed with other statements you made. So we can agree to disagree but I’m not getting into a forum dispute simply because I make valid statements that some (namely you) may not agree with.
I don’t have to “prove” a damned thing to you in effort to validate factual statements clown. It’s your type of mentality and attitude that’s counter to having productive intelligent conversations.
Did I say that? No… But you continue to dance all around the real point with your subtle little sarcasm… Quality Assured software ensures to a degree that prior working components aren’t broken. Does this happen in reality? Unfortunately and Of course not, BUT if it does happen with any degree of frequency (which it has and does) then something is definitively wrong in the SDLC that needs to be addressed. If you read enough areas within the forum you’ll see where there is humble admission by Steinberg that allures to this as well. So they even know it. So I’m not stating things which aren’t obvious even by Steinberg’s standards.
Furthermore, I stated my profession not out of trying to sound like I’m a big shot expert as you seem to suggest out of your “cute little” sarcasm; but to state clearly that I know and have years of experience in the field prior to stating the concerns. So folks don’t think I’m speaking of things of which I have no knowledge. Quit being an @$%$!
I do chuckle to myself about the number of people that are complaining about Cubase 10 who are “software developers”!
Almost every complaint I have read has the OP confirming their proffessional status by outlining the “credentials” that allow them to be right when everyone who disagrees with them is wrong!
Also, these “software developers” never seem willing to blame their own systems, its always the programs that are loaded on them?
Also, another thing I noticed is that nearly all the detractors appear to be new members? If there were real issues surely senior members would be having them as well?
Mmm, curiouser and curiouser!
I’m not jumping to any conclusions, just pointing out these apparently wierd facts!
To be fair I think Steinberg hasn’t been screwing with up every update. Just a few versions like C7 and C8.5. All other versions have been fairly stable.
Since Steinberg has been under new management / Yamaha, the deadlines, the new features and staying in the lead, patents and copyrights play a role in these decisions.
If you guys haven’t noticed, every time Steinberg makes a major redesign of the GUI, there are major bugs. Like from C6/6.5 to C7. Some features like the edge pop up in version 8.5 were rediculous and disliked by many.
This new version C10 is getting a lot of negative reviews for some reason. It looks like an okay move for Steinberg once they fix all the bugs. Which I’m sure they will in version C10.5… although the virtual reality production tools look interesting.
Cubase has reached a plateau in the DAW software industry. Congratulations Steinberg you’re still the leader but like MeastroMetro7 posted, the new features have introduced new bugs.
I personally think Steinberg should stick to one GUI design and stop redesigning every few years. And work on improving things like Groove Agent, is a terrible drum machine. I now avoid it completely and prefer programming my drums in other DAW’s like Logic or other mobile apps.
Retrologue is cool but most synth sounds or VST in Cubase are boring and not very exciting and inspiring.
The trip out and they way the midi in cubase goes out of sync is terrible. Beat designer could use a major update and should have the ability to easily generate or have thousands of presets / patterns. But instead this new version come with many gigabytes of loops that increases the size of Cubase.
I’m at the point that I only use Cubase at certain, final stages of my production and mixing. Cubase is not inspiring and doesn’t help much with your creativity, Logic or even Garage Band mobile app is much better for that… I will not buy this new Cubase 10. Maybe Cubase 10.5…