Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] MMA membership (rambling reply)
From: Dave Phillips (dlphilp@bright.net)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 16:27:46 EET
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> Look at the development of the Kernel these days. In a total of 1000
> (approx) highly active developers roughly 500 of them are employed by
> major corporations like IBM, HP, Intel, AMD... The list is obviously
> very large.
>
> It is high time that the professional audio community got involved in
> the open source process. Your absence has become extreemely noticable.
> By attempting to make a protocol/specification that aims at providing
> cross platform functionality you cannot justify using closed, old
> economy methods of communication.
>
> Not when there is a large number of developers who are already
> communicating on mass in the Open source community.
Patrick, I'm reminded of Paul's observation of how small the industry
really is. Considering the narrowness of the market I'd wonder why the
major manufacturers would do anything that might put the jinx on their
cash flow. I'm not implying those guys are getting rich, just that
they're marketing their wares to a rather small contingent of users. In
that perspective it just doesn't work to compare IBM or Intel to the
companies writing audio and music software.
I attended some NAMM shows at the height of the MIDI software mania
during the 80s. The craze has died down now, the inevitable shakeouts
have occurred, and people are far more accustomed to using software to
make music. Fewer startups appear in this business now probably because
there's just no point in going toe-to-toe with the big guns. Now
everyone knows the market is simply too narrow.
So I understand the protective attitudes: these are people trying to
make a living out of an activity we're pleased (?) to do for free.
Sometimes I think that "they" understand "us" all too well: open-source
development *is* a threat to some livelihoods, even if those threatened
might themselves have no beef with open-source, the GPL, Linux, or
whatever. Again, the guy writing code for IBM isn't really worried that
Linux developers are going to eliminate his job anytime soon, but a
person making a living writing audio plugins might feel a little nervous
about something like the development going on with LADSPA or XAP. Not to
mention how companies like Steinberg and Cakewalk are going to feel when
Ardour 1.0 hits the net. No, we're not doing these things to put anyone
out of work, but that can be a distasteful side-effect of our own
labors.
In the context of "We write software to make money to support ourselves
and our families" it is completely understandable why no major audio
software manufacturer has come across to Linux: we represent a very thin
slice of an already thin slice of the pie, and we have expectations and
motivations simply not found in those worlds (Win/Mac)far more familiar
to audio and music software manufacturers.
So is there some solution that would satisfy all parties ? I don't know.
We've polled ourselves on the likelihood of purchasing Linux versions of
[your favorite Win/Mac music software here], with predictably mixed
results. Commercially-available Linux adio software has a rather dim
history, so there's just not a lot of attraction (for the commercial
vendors) beyond the technical virtues of the platform.
AFAIK no LA-based recording or post-production studio is using Linux on
a daily basis. We need to score a win similar to the Linux wins in the
film industry. A hit song made with Linux software would certainly do
the trick (not that I'm a fan of popular music, but it is the big
market/money that counts for the pro-audio guys).
Btw, if you haven't seen it yet the "Music Gear 2003" mag is on
newstands now. The software listings are notable, with a considerable
number of plugin manufacturers represented. Obviously that market is
less formidable for the new developer than the locked-down market
belonging to Cubase, Sonar, and Logic.
> If you want an example of this paradigm working in an audio context you
> only need to look at the port-audio project. If you want to see the
> power of the Linux Audio Developers then the best example is JACK. We
> have created a protocol that neither M$ or Mac developers can provide a
> better option.
True, and we've done it for the love of the thing itself (ardour) and
for the challenge it represents. Linux development is famous for the
"itch/scratch" paradigm, and we're fortunate to have audio developers
who believe that a Linux DAW is an itch that simply must be scratched.
So again: the Big Guns are compelled to ask the question, "Why should we
develop for Linux ? You get most of your software for free, you're sound
& music audience isn't all that large, and commercial music software for
Linux hasn't succeeded yet [4Front Technologies excepted]. We would have
to put people onto an uncertain development track, with not much
assurance that we'll make money from it, and we'll face constant
competition from established teams of highly competent and experienced
native Linux audio software developers who give away the results of
their labor. So where's *our* incentive ?". One possible response is:
"The platform's technical excellence is enough reason (though not the
only one).
Musicians are already moving towards Linux as an alternative to the
increasingly stringent and noxious licensing terms from Microsoft, and
Linux audio developers are hard at work providing musicians with the
kind of software they're familiar with (and not so familiar with). So we
ask you: are you willing to risk missing this boat ? When the TOC is
already low, when the software base is there, and when the reputation
gets around, there just may be a mass exodus. You guys might want to
have made some plans to be here when those new users arrive."
> Instead of spending the money on hiring someone to do the book keeping
> and running the mailing list etc... You could be channeling that into
> Open source. If those other companies can justify it then why can't you?
See above. I'm wondering out loud here, Patrick, with no offense
intended. You raised some points I feel do need addressed by the major
audio software companies, but I also feel that we tend to overlook the
dynamics that drive the industry on their side of the fence. Again, IBM
can justify about anything they do: they have the deep pockets and the
money to fill 'em. I suspect that the same is just not true for many
Win/Mac audio software developers. They're also already competing with
each other, and that narrows their asking prices. They do face real
difficulties accomodating Linux into their plans, some of which may not
be very obvious to us.
I'm very interested in any remarks Ron Kuper might like to make here.
I'm curious to know what he thinks of Linux, how he feels about the
Linux audio development community, and if he sees an eventual market for
his company here in Linux land.
Patrick, thanks for an interesting and provocative message !
Best regards,
== Dave Phillips
The Book Of Linux Music & Sound at http://www.nostarch.com/lms.htm
The Linux Soundapps Site at http://linux-sound.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 16:32:56 EET