A fair and honest discussion about a product's "flaws" must inevitably include the "why" behind them.
Let me summarize your approach here:

1. You make a claim
2. I provide a factual counter-argument that provides context
3. Since you have no substantive response to my argument, you evade it and unilaterally declare it off-topic, while simultaneously trying to bend the rules of the discussion to make your original claim immune to any criticism

You repeatedly try to frame my context as irrelevant because it dismantles your critique. That's not how you argue in good faith, my friend.

Again, two rhetorical tactics in one sentence... and besides, your statement is objectively false!

1. Aesthetics are the very definition of subjective. There is no objective perspective that can classify a UI as ugly. You're selling your personal opinion as an indisputable fact. REAPERs UI is plain, not objectively ugly.
2. Your claim of an objectively bad UX is simply wrong. UX is measured by criteria like consistency, efficiency, and logical architecture - and in these areas, REAPER is extremely strong. REAPER has a steep learning curve, but its onboarding is being actively improved, as recent updates show.

And now that you've tried to unilaterally change the rules of the debate to your favor, here comes the classic barrage of unsubstantiated claims, half-truths, and exaggerations, hoping that the sheer quantity of nonsense will distract from the lack of quality in your "arguments".
I've been really patient with you, but frankly, your behavior is really starting to piss me off.


Alright, so let's play another round of Bullshit Bingo:

That's polemics, not an argument.

You're cherry-picking a fact that supports your thesis while ignoring the entire context. Yes, REAPER doesn't come with a large instrument library. That's a fundamental part of REAPERs purpose! It's literally what they advertise. Especially since a lot producers prefer third-party instruments anyway. Thanks for stating the obvious for everyone. I'm sure no one would have figured that out on their own.

This is the most dishonest part of your argument and a repeated, deliberate misrepresentation. You're taking ONE suggestion I made for ONE highly specific problem that carrots brought up, and you're twisting it into the lie that REAPER is broken software that needs "tons" of constant fixes. That is simply manipulative... a classic straw man...

This directly contradicts your own previous argument. You started this debate from the exact opposite position. You can't first reject a tool because you don't like who coded it or how it's offered, and then a few posts later claim you don't care "who coded it". You don't have a consistent position. You say whatever you think is most convenient for your attack at that moment. That's hypocritical.

So, now that we've checked off your polemics, cherry-picking, straw man, and hypocrisy, let's get to the grand finale of your Bullshit Bingo: the price comparisons, where you try to cement your shaky argument with numbers.

My argument was that Apple's business model cross-subsidizes the low price of Logic through expensive hardware sales. Your "rebuttal" that "many people have a Mac anyway" has absolutely nothing to do with that point logically. It's an observation that's irrelevant to the topic. So you're actually doing the very thing you keep accusing me of: being irrelevant and off-topic.

And when you realize your "argument" is going nowhere, you flee to your favorite tactic: your argumentative emergency exit. Every time you are substantively refuted, you try to declare the debate "off-topic", even though you started it yourself.

You got caught passing off a temporary sale price as the standard price. Instead of admitting this simple mistake, you just invent your own economic reality. Okay... Fine, I'll play along in your new reality:
Since REAPER can be used indefinitely for free without a valid license, then free is now the new standard price for REAPER. Let's compare that to Logic. Logic costs $200, but you need a Mac for it, so let's use an M4 Pro Mac Mini for $1,400 for comparison. That makes Logic cost $1,600, and Logic updates cost about $1,400 every 6 years. REAPER updates cost nothing because, you know, the standard price is $0. And you might have to update your computer maybe once every 20 years.

Your false analogy with UAD plugins, by the way, only makes it much worse, as their business model is notorious for being based on artificially high list prices. Honestly, you could hardly have picked a worse example... unless maybe you'd chosen Waves.

Ah yes, the final, desperate leap:
As you realize your entire price argument is collapsing, you make a panicked leap back to your old "REAPER has no plugins" argument.
Changing the subject seems to be "your thing" anyway. Argument collapses, quick subject change, or declare everything irrelevant and then quickly change the subject.

Like I said: I'm not here arguing for REAPER, I'm arguing against BULLSHIT. And I'm fully aware of what this thread is about.

"Oooh, that's a Bingo! Is that the way you say it? That's a Bingo?"

 

Again, if you like a lightweight DAW Reaper is great.
What? No it can't there are thousands of different menus and pop ups, that can't properly be changed.

If you look at the Ableton, FL Studio or Logic - these are not half-working VSTs. These are often exceptional tools.

No the reason does not matter. It is absolutely irrelevant if the UI of Reaper is ugly because of a conscious decision (and given the abhorrent amount of menus , ugh) - or because an unconscious one.

Subjective aesthetics, yes. But UX isn’t just consistency in code, it’s usability in practice. REAPER has a notorious sprawl of menus, pop-ups, and cryptically named options. Tiny click-targets and buried submenus are not ‘efficient architecture.’ They’re friction points that force users to hunt or script fixes. Compare that with Ableton or Logic: core features are exposed up front, not hidden behind layers of right-click menus. The notorius "Do you want to save this file you just recorded" default prompt.

That’s a rationalization, not a strength. Every serious DAW ships with quality stock instruments, not as toys, but as production-ready tools. Logic’s Alchemy, Ableton’s Operator, FL’s Harmor, these aren’t ‘half-working freebies,’ they’re used on chart hits. REAPER offers zero equivalent. Which means a new user either spends extra for third-party VSTs or can’t start producing. That’s not a feature, it’s a barrier.

It’s not a strawman if the workflow demands scripts and community patches for what are standard stock functions elsewhere. Essential features are hidden behind odd defaults or require third-party scripts. That’s the definition of needing one-offs. The fact that the community fills gaps shows demand, not dishonesty.

Who coded it doesn’t matter, correct. What matters is usability. My critique hasn’t shifted: I’m saying usability suffers when basic features are hidden or missing. That’s true regardless of whether it’s coded by one guy or a team of fifty.

You’re overcomplicating a simple point: when people evaluate DAWs, they look at real-world costs and feature sets. Logic costs $200, includes a full suite of pro-level instruments and effects, and comes with ongoing updates. REAPER may be cheap, but out of the box it offers none of that. If a DAW is barebones, the user will have to buy plugins to reach parity. That’s not irrelevant, it’s literally part of the buying decision.
Most people who buy Logic already own a Mac for other reasons — work, school, creative software, etc. For them, Logic’s price really is $200.

If the sale price is often enough, i would count it at standard price.

Reaper's trial is 60 days. Using it without paying is against the license. So that is not an argument. If Reaper would have a 0$ sale 5 times a year that would be an argument.
Everyone needs a computer to run a DAAW. You can't add the full price of a Mac to Logic unless you also add the price of comparable Windows PC to reaper.
if the user has a mac -> Logic = 199$ all in for a massive instruments effects bundle.
If the user has a PC -> Reaper = 60-225$, but no instruments.

To approximate Logic lodout you would need at least 1 flagsip synth, a sampler, drums, keys/pianos anda few bread and butter like reverb.

Saying “update your Mac every 6 years” while claiming REAPER users “maybe update every 20 years” is unserious: OS support cycles, plugin minimum versions, large sample libraries, and CPU-heavy synths drive both Mac and PC upgrades.If you load modern third-party instruments on REAPER, you need modern CPU/RAM/SSD anyway. The workload comes from projects and plugins, not the DAW logo.

Not really, you are rationalizing each flaw that Reaper might has.