Ok, so let’s presume Steinberg add a new level of external controller support, which will supersede the VST and Quick Track Control options. Perhaps with dedicated pageable controls and an API that allows users (or manuafcturers) to develop their own hardware control mappings that can focus on mixer or individual plugin elements. How cool would that be?
What do they do at that point with the current mapping system in place to progress the software, and still support legacy users?
By leaving the old system(s) in place it will show on the tabs on the left, if there’s any kind of mappings in there it will still have to be part of the input chain for each track ‘in addition’ to a new system, also would still have to appear in the studio setup screens as a selection. They cannot just remove that functionality.
Furthermore, I can’t see how they could merge such a dated system into a more progressive, conceptual change. In fact, if they did attempt at building such a system encompassing both old and new, it would actually restrict it’s progress.
As for LPX, i’m a long time user since version 7. And i can assure you that there’s a real mess that Apple has on it’s hands, there’s a lot of skinned plugins and bolt-ons to achieve new feature sets, but underneath it’s mainly stayed the same with emagic developed functions that todays team have very little experience on - so they leave it well alone.
You still can’t even address different incoming MIDI ports per track, so they had to add a global filter as part of the main preference to prevent drum machines/external sequences accidentally flooding into any record enabled track. ‘Auto Demix’ is still the only solution for multitrack MIDI recording, You can’t route one track to another, because, again, it’s part of the archaic makeup of the software, hence the requirement for IAC busses, The Environment still exists, and has seen no development or support for modern displays, And the delay compensation is still screwed where busses are in play.
Logic is a prime example of legacy software that has received far more bolt-ons and reskins than it should’ve. They’ll ditch it and move to garageband as the core codebase once universal apps arrive, put money on that.
It’s a great DAW and i love it, but i wouldn’t use it as an example of positive progression. Studio One is one of the few DAWs that appears to have a very clean development path so far. But this discussion is purely an explanations on why Cubase still shows remnants of it’s 30+ year legacy, because it has to.
if the layout is changed, but frankly, that’s not really Steinbergs problem is it?
Exactly - as you’ve said yourself, it’s not the fault of the developers, hence why the question “Steinbergs programmers aren’t capable enough” you asked at the other poster, really is not the point being made here. It’s acceptance of what and where Cubase is, not questioning their ability.