Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tracker
From: Dave Phillips (dlphilp_AT_bright.net)
Date: Fri Nov 28 2003 - 16:04:35 EET
Stonekeeper wrote:
>>You should take note that *no* commercial audio software for Linux has
>>succeeded, and there have actually been a few nice apps for sale (Jazz
>>and the Ultramaster RS101 come to mind).
>>
>>
>
>Why do you think that was?
> Being closed source? (Would you have bought it if you could download
>it?)
> Too pricey?
> Linux cheapskates? ;) (Before WW4 starts, I exclusively use linux for
>my work :) )
>
> I'd be interested to know.
>
Location, location, location. ;)
Seriously, did you ever see an ad in EM or SoS or Keyboard for those
products ? Me neither. So it doesn't help sales if no-one knows about
your product. OTOH, I'm sure the ad budget for those products was close
to zilch.
The RS101 was very neat, and there's now a group who would like to see
the sources opened. Alas, the owners of the code have been rather slow
about releasing it.
I don't think the prices were out of line with comparable products in
Windoze, so again I'm leaning towards a lack of presence in the larger
marketing world.
And the truth is that there are damned few musicians working with Linux
even now, so the situation three years ago was considerably worse (WRT
the target clientele).
>>There was a day in my youth when musicians were perceived as radical
>>people. Alas, they seem mostly now to be happy toeing corporate lines.
>>Perhaps Linux is a motivating influence for those musicians who still
>>perceive themselves as truly radical, denying that public equation in
>>favor of something better ? Just a thought...
>>
>>
>
>I really hope that comment was targeted at me, i really do. You couldn't
>paint a better picture of irony :)
>
>
No, no, I don't know you well enough to target you. ;-)
Seriously I abhor ad hominem attacks on this or any list. IMO your
original post was civil and well-stated. It was also provocative (and I
hope it was meant to be) in a good way.
>>So you accept a poor situation and make a virtue of it ?
>>
>>
>
>Again, misinterpretation. I never said that did i? I said it was par for
>the course for windows users.
>
>
Mea culpa. I gathered from your post that Windows was your main OS for
making music. Nothing wrong with that, but the statement that (I'm
paraphrasing now) poor performance from the OS is something "par for the
course" for Windoze users was taken as a sad commentary on the state of
"what obedient consumers have learned to accept from software producers".
>It is very difficult to sell something to someone that you can also get
>for no cost. Infact, it's almost impossible if the customer knows this.
>If steinberg opensourced cubase, they would not be making money on sales
>of cubase. People would package them up with better installers and we'd
>all be using it. What I do believe you can sell is services. This is
>where the "product" becomes the tool and you sell your time and
>peripheral services.
>
>
I've heard this argument so many times for so many years, I'm starting
to wonder if it really holds water. I'm not sure a company writing music
software can actually generate considerable cash flow from services.
What would be the nature of most of that service ? I know there are a
lot of Cubase users out there, but would so many have problems enough to
keep Steinberg's support lines busy generating income ? What other
services do you think would generate the necessary level of income for
such a company ?
>>Btw, are you making a living as a musician or a coder or both ?
>>
>>
>
>I'm making a living as a coder. I will be making money from music when
>the MCPS money comes through.
>
>
I'm sorry: MCPS ?
>>Personally I'd be happy to see those ports, but I wouldn't go out of my
>>way to support them unless the manufacturers bring something more to the
>>party.
>>
>>
>
>I don't think they'd ask.
>
I'm not so sure. Ron Kuper (?) from Cakewalk/Sonar has been known to
lurk here, and he's come across as truly interested in Linux audio
activities. Ditto for Charlie Steinberg (though I don't know if he's a
lurker or even a member of the list). It's worth noting that both those
companies have come far by (along with making a good product) being
responsive to their customer base. It's quite possible that they could
find productive channels for contributing to open-source projects
without competing against themselves. Some time ago I voiced the
question "How will Cakewalk et al respond if/when Ardour starts being
distributed along with M-Audio and RME boards and makes real progress in
the pro-audio world ?". Ron's response was sober and solid, stating that
they would respond by trying to make their products even better. These
guys have an excellent grasp of market realities in what is indeed a
very narrow market, they know how to make smart moves. Consider the
success of VST: Steinberg created an open standard (well, open by the
standards of the Windows/Mac worlds) and created a thriving community of
developers and users. Everyone wins.
It's also worth mentioning the evolving business model for Ardour. Paul
has made it clear that certain features will only be added to Ardour if
they're paid for, e.g. if you want MIDI capabilities in Ardour you'll
get them much faster if you contribute some dinero. I don't know how
well this actually working for Paul, but if it does work sufficiently
well perhaps it's another aspect of Ardour that will make a little
history and serve as a HOWTO for projects of similar scope. My
impression has been that Paul has been looking at various ways to
generate income from Ardour, it will be very interesting to see how it
all works out over the next few years.
>>Otherwise they'll be just some more hangers on for the ride,
>>benefiting from the work done by many of the people who populate this
>>list.
>>
>>
>
>That's the beauty of open source, it frees us to build on the shoulders
>of others.
>
>
Yes, but as in my example of the food co-ops we really ought to strongly
encourage a "take & give" philosophy among users. The benefits are
self-evident, and there are of course many ways to contribute to
open-source projects without being a developer/coder yourself.
>>To each his own though, and I can easily understand why a user
>>would want those apps on this platform.
>>
>>
>
>ok, shock time: I probably wouldn't bother with these either.
>
>
I would probably check them out just due to curiosity and to see what
features I'll bug the developers for in Ardour and ecasound... ;)
>>OTOH, if Steiberg et al. give something back then I'm better inclined to
>>support their products.
>>
>>
>
>I don't understand what you mean by supporting them.
>
>
Purchasing their products.
>PS: I may just post about where i really stand on all this and maybe
>I'll take off my devil suit ;)
>
>
Even as a "Devil's advocate" post your original was a good spur towards
discussion of some interesting topics. Thanks for writing it, sorry for
any misapprehension on my part, and I hope we read more from you on this
list.
Best regards,
Dave Phillips
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Nov 28 2003 - 15:55:07 EET