I started this topic with the hope it would stimulate, not only people expressing their desire for the continuation of CMC products but all potentially viable Steinberg Hardware products. I was thinking about the history of hardware support vs software support from the same company (in this case Steinberg).
First of all I, personally think that Steinberg develops darn good hardware for their software, better than anyone else. I've been a faithful Cubase user since the Atari days. I feel I made the right chioce for the long run. I was one of the "Houston" faithfuls until I realized it's demise was real. I will stay focused an Steinberg products but will mention, as most know other software companies which put out hardware support products, also end up with short life spans - the hardware that is.
From a users stand point we feel that "viable" means as long as the hardware can be improved through software updates, Steinberg should "want" to do so. Was the Houston a failure in terms of hardware design? Was there any indication of this? Or was it a matter of marginal economic loss or gain?
Those of you who are much more technically astute than I am can educate me on this, but it seems to me what is lacking with hardware long term viability is the same as what we actually, as consumers are willing to do for the software : pay for improvement updates. I know this point is debatable, please don't make this an "all improvements should be free" thing.
If we are willing to pay for software improvements, shouldn't we also, perhaps even more be willing to pay for hardware updates? Strictly my opinion, but I would gladly do that. Not only for the hardware but the software as well.
Those of you with more technical knowledge have mentioned desired improvements to the CMC series. I would like to see the AI knob, one example, respond to whatever the mouse points to. There are software companies ( one in particular) which offer annual subscription rates so that improvements/enhancements are made.
I, for one, would gladly pay, to know my hardware remains viable to the extent of the hardware's capabilities as the software evolves. If you agree, let it be known....
The following is my biased opinion: I don't want new softsynths, effects, as incitements to keep Cubase profitable. How many have fully, really fully explored what they already have? I don't want the next "great thing" which replaces the CMC series, (or the MR816, or CC121) any more than an acoustic instrument player would want to replace their instrument simply because it wasn't the latest model.
It would be wonderful if someone from Steinberg could chime in here, without being criticized for their opinion, but maybe from a business policy standpoint that isn't possible.
So what is your opinion regarding monetary support for improvements to Steinberg's hardware?