4 ms·
> DaVinci is ridiculously cheap because the entire company is owned by three guys, at least one of whom has a personal, burning disgust for the way that the tel
by capableweb 5y ago
> DaVinci is ridiculously cheap because the entire company is owned by three guys, at least one of whom has a personal, burning disgust for the way that the television industry (in particular, the Australian television industry) used to be run back in the day.
Yeah, I mean that probably affects how they setup their pricing, but as you quoted me, it seems you're arguing against my point, rather than adding to it.
Without the hardware side of BMD, I'm not sure how they would be able to sustain the company as it is with just sales of the (very cheap) software. My point was not to say anything about the motivations of the founders, but more about how that price point can remain cheap, even though it costs way more to develop than what they can ever make back from selling just the software.
- AussieWog93 5y ago>Without the hardware side of BMD, I'm not sure how they would be able to sustain the company as it is with just sales of the (very cheap) software. I don't understand the specifics, but I know Resolve is profitable in its own right (used to have lunch multiple times per week with one of the co-founders). I think a lot of the IP was picked up during an acquisition, and most of the work on it is done by a fairly lean team up in Singapore. Of course, that's not to say it's as profitable as it could be, but neither optimising for profit nor making a loss is not the goal of the founders.