<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Paul Davis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul@linuxaudiosystems.com">paul@linuxaudiosystems.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Patrick<br>
<div class="im">Shirkey<<a href="mailto:pshirkey@boosthardware.com">pshirkey@boosthardware.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">> So I guess they wanted things to be as tightly integrated as possible for<br>
> performance reasons?<br>
<br>
</div>i had some extended conversations with one of ableton's founders about<br>
this, and he talked about it in one of my classes at the TU.<br>
basically, they wanted to tap into the "max crowd", however you<br>
interpret that, which they felt that Live currently didn't do. they<br>
saw/see a lot of skill and cool stuff going on with max that can't be<br>
done in Live. their idea seems to have been to try to integrate that<br>
as tightly as possble into Live, so that people who create cool max<br>
patches can use them as if they were builtin processing objects in<br>
Live. not "max connected to Live" (which is already possible with<br>
JACK, and they know it). at present, there is no "distribution" system<br>
for those patches, but that didn't seemed to be ruled out for the<br>
future.<br>
<div><div></div><br></div></blockquote><div><br>That's the impression I got from the situation - they recognised that a significant portion of the Max userbase were either already using Live + Soundflower + Max (or some other kludge) or were interested in interoperability. <br>
<br>This market seems pretty tightly pegged to the Apple platform. At least here in Oz, Max users tend to pick it up at university, where there's pretty high saturation of Apple hardware. <br> <br></div></div>