Len Moskowitz wrote:
"Simon Jenkins"
<sjenkins(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
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.
My guess is that their market niche is small enough that it is not
attractive to potential competitors. Having a Linux SDK likely wouldn't add
enough potential sales to make a new product development project worthwhile.
I was more wondering what things would be like if chameleon had been (or if
a competitor's product were) a completely open and free system in software
terms.
Probably not much different in isolation, but with a couple of similar
things
going on in "nearby" niches you could see a synergy develop where everybody
was selling their own specialised hardware into their own specialised
corners
of the market, but doing it quicker, cheaper and better. It would also
make it
possible for even smaller companies to work even smaller niches, since
whilst
hardware costs per unit do increase when you halve your production run, they
don't actually double like software costs do.
A proviso here is that the companies involved really would have to be
selling
specialised *hardware*. There are plenty of 1U racks out there which are
little
more than particularly flashy - and relatively copy resistant - delivery
formats
for the software inside them.
Taking a step back from the soundart/chameleon example (which I didn't
raise,
but may have overpursued) I still think that "free software running on
custom
hardware" is *at least* as plausible a model for open software
penetrating the
pro-audio market as "people in suits will sell it for us".
Simon Jenkins
(Bristol, UK)