3 ms·
Because it’s not 2002? As you say, music production capable workstations didn’t really exist. To count out extremely capable incumbents in favour of reporting t
by te_chris 3y ago
Because it’s not 2002? As you say, music production capable workstations didn’t really exist. To count out extremely capable incumbents in favour of reporting the opinions of bandlab who bought Cakewalk in a fire sale and haven’t really had much of a dent from what I can tell seems strange.
No solid quotes from presonus either.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago> As you say, music production capable workstations didn’t really exist. Didn't say that. They absolutely did! It took a small startup in Berlin to introduce the idea that maybe everything should be tied to the groove, always. That was not 100% revolutionary (Acid could do some of that), but it upended computer-based music production entirely. The incumbents are very, very unlikely to have access to people with a deep/serious interest in "AI & music" technology (maybe Apple?). Startups in this space are started by those people.
- xcv123 3y ago> To count out extremely capable incumbents The article mentions those "extremely capable incumbents" are now stuck with legacy codebases. > music production capable workstations didn’t really exist Logic and Cubase were highly capable in 2002. They haven't progressed much in 20 years. The midi drum track editor in Cubase today looks the same as the 90s version.