[linux-audio-dev] Tracker

Dave Phillips dlphilp at bright.net
Fri Nov 28 14:04:35 UTC 2003


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



>
>  
>





More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list