3 ms·

I guess another thought, mind you, is that Elementary doesn't need to succeed for hard core audio devs in order for it to succeed as a business - it just needs

I guess another thought, mind you, is that Elementary doesn't need to succeed for hard core audio devs in order for it to succeed as a business - it just needs enough people who think they will succeed. If this turns out to be a great tool for casual or beginner plugin devs, I could see that being a valid market. Witness the explosion of casual Ableton Live plugin devs from Max for Live. I'm sure the vast majority of JUCE licenses don't wind up becoming sustaining businesses too, and the barrier to entry is a lot higher there. Whether those folks will get to the point of paying a license fee is the million dollar question I guess. Ain't nothing wrong with selling pickaxes to miners and all that....

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Overall I think these are all fair points. Still, I think that we have an obligation towards non-hard-core audio devs (whatever that actually means) to remind them that if you want to find gold you likely need a pickaxe, but if you want to turn over a field, you need a plough. It's not important that everyone's efforts become successful businesses. What seems more important to me is two-fold: 1. the existence of suitable entry points for "non-hard-core audio devs" 2. if it isn't possible to provide those entry points using the same tools that the "hard-core audio devs" would use, to be sure that the "non-hard-core" folks understand that there is a difference and that there is a smooth migratory pathway between the two worlds. On that front, Elementary looks fairly good, other than its fairly strong claims that this is a suitable technology for creating commercial audio plugins. Let's be honest: the main thing that gets in the way for "old school" technologies these days is just compilation. Perry Cook's synthesis toolkit is a very old bundle of C++ modules that lets you do more or less the exact same thing that Elementary does. But being C++ means that there's a build step (which may generate errors). For people more familiar with interpreted languages like JS and its cousins, this appears to have become an almost insurmountable obstacle. If you can't just type it and run it, it's crap. I think that's wrong, but I understand the appeal of "type and run" for people starting out on the path of "make the computer do what I want".

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Overall I think these are all fair points. Still, I think that we have an obligation towards non-hard-core audio devs (whatever that actually means) to remind them that if you want to find gold you likely need a pickaxe, but if you want to turn over a field, you need a plough. It's not important that everyone's efforts become successful businesses. What seems more important to me is two-fold: 1. the existence of suitable entry points for "non-hard-core audio devs" 2. if it isn't possible to provide those entry points using the same tools that the "hard-core audio devs" would use, to be sure that the "non-hard-core" folks understand that there is a difference and that there is a smooth migratory pathway between the two worlds. On that front, Elementary looks fairly good, other than its fairly strong claims that this is a suitable technology for creating commercial audio plugins. Let's be honest: the main thing that gets in the way for "old school" technologies these days is just compilation. Perry Cook's synthesis toolkit is a very old bundle of C++ modules that lets you do more or less the exact same thing that Elementary does. But being C++ means that there's a build step (which may generate errors). For people more familiar with interpreted languages like JS and its cousins, this appears to have become an almost insurmountable obstacle. If you can't just type it and run it, it's crap. I think that's wrong, but I understand the appeal of "type and run" for people starting out on the path of "make the computer do what I want".