Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: image problem [was Re: [Alsa-devel] help for a levelmeter]

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: image problem [was Re: [Alsa-devel] help for a levelmeter]
From: Simon Jenkins (sjenkins_AT_blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 10 2002 - 19:35:54 EET


  Paul Davis wrote:

>>If they're unable or unwilling to tell the difference between "free
>>software" and "software that is written for free" then there's
>>probably never going to be a linux sdk for their hardware. Its just
>>too specialised and complex for someone to do it for free, or to
>>modify anything that's already out there to do the job.
>>
>>
>
>this is a complete mis-statement of the problem.
>
You're right. I shouldn't have said that. It was wrong.

<begin backpedalling>
What I was/am trying to discuss is whether its a viable business model,
in the audio market, for companies to build custom hardware that runs
open software. The chameleon provided a good discussion point for this
because it uses a half-open software model so it exposes a lot of the
issues.

But the point I was trying to make above (that a company pursuing the
open software model shouldn't expect *all* the software to cost them
nothing, and most especially not the software that is most directly
concerned with their own hardware) shouldn't have been directed at
soundart, because that's not the model they're pursuing.

A linux port of their sdk wouldn't be profitable if they had to pay for it
(hence they won't pay for it) even though it would be marginally beneficial
for them if it turned up for free (hence they're open and friendly to offers
if anyone wants to port it). There's nothing wrong with that.

And it looks like a fantastic product. They may sell me one yet, whether
it gets a linux sdk or not.
<end backpedalling>

Your points are answerable (or at least debateable) but please take my
answers in the following spirit:

I'm *not* criticising soundart, or saying they've done anything bad
or wrong. I *am* using their chameleon as an example to explore
whether or not a fully open software model is viable in that market.

Soundart have chosen to go half-open, and that's their choice. But could
they have gone further? Should they have gone further? And how would
a hypothetical competitor who went fully open get along?

> soundart is not a
>large company by any means. like most companies making pro audio
>equipment, they exist in a very small niche market and are generally
>small entities. they have neither the financial nor human resources to
>put into a linux port.
>
Agreed, so any software development costs they incur must be spread
across relatively few customers. Could they have incurred less of these
costs by going totally open? I think they could, not least because ladspa
solves a lot of problems they must have re-solved for themselves.

Sure they'd still have had to fund quite a lot of software development,
but (in an ideal world, anyway) they'd have been funding it in inverse
proportion to how much that software was specific to their hardware,
ranging from 100% of the cost (for code that's absolutely specific to
their hardware) through, say, 10% of the cost (other people in nearby
niches are also shifting data in and out of DSPs via ADCs and DACs,
getting data from front panel encoders, writing data to front panel
LCDs) right down to negligible or zero cost for stuff thats ubiquitous
such as the compiler.

>and lets suppose they did so. how many extra units would they actually
>sell? my guess is less than a dozen or so in a given year. notice that
>i said "extra".the chameleon doesn't run linux, we're talking about
>developers who want to work on linux but develop DSP code for the
>chameleon. thats a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny market.
>
Currently they're targetting developers, but the long term plan must
surely be to achieve a critical mass of software for the unit so it
becomes attractive for end users to buy and use.
 
In which case, having half a dozen open source developers on board
might have benefits far beyond the sale of half a dozen units, especially
if the chameleon API had been close to or identical with ladspa so that
it was a simple porting job to get any ladspa plug-in running on the
chameleon or vice-versa. (I'm not sure how close their API actually is.
Maybe it *is* a simple job to port stuff to it, or maybe a wrapper could
be written so it became a simple job).

>there just isn't any financial justification at this point for a small
>company with an existing SDK for the most widely used OS in the world
>to spin off cash, time and/or people to develop a linux SDK, even if
>they *wanted* to.
>
>--p
>
>
Agreed. They took the half-open software approach and, given that
approach, they did the right thing to put the sdk on Windows and not
port to other platforms. The position they are in now is precisely the
position they should be in, having taken the approach they did.

But where would they have been now if they had taken the fully
open route? Somewhere better? Somewhere worse? Where could
a hypothetical competitor who started now, from scratch, with a
fully open model get to? Would they catch up and overtake? Would
they fail to catch up? Would they win or lose against chameleon in
its own niche? Or would they carve out a new niche, next-door to
the chameleon but not quite competing with it?

I don't know the answers to these questions.

Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 10 2002 - 18:47:41 EET