Have you considered open sourcing MuLab?

[TheoXD]

Lately we see more and more open source projects that challenge big players in the industry (Blender, Krita and Godot are a good example of those challengers) the only area that still haven't been affected by open source much is music creation, as most DAWs are proprietary. I hardly see MuLab listed among top daws and mostly as honorable mention, probably why it took me a while to find it. If you could find a new business model that would give same revenue as now, going open source would be beneficial (more exposure, more supported platforms, better usability, better issues/fixes rate, better documentation e.c.t). I don't necessarily mean donations as there are better ways to monetize on open source than relying on donations.

[whyterabbyt]

If you could find a new business model that would give same revenue as now, going open source would be beneficial (more exposure, more supported platforms, better usability, better issues/fixes rate, better documentation e.c.t). I don't necessarily mean donations as there are better ways to monetize on open source than relying on donations.

And what business model would that be, then? The real-world business-level monetization of open source is support contracts and customisation; neither of those fly that well on a small user base that is primarily hobbyists on a budget. Look at how long it took for Ardour to be able to target mainstream OS's; most of a decade. And even with SSL/Harrison involvement, Ardour's finances have long been shaky - even now they are pretty much entirely dependent on subscription-style donations to get updates, implying even regular donations arent working for it.

Funnily enough its actually harder to get people to pay for something they can also get for nothing.

Actual evidence of something comparable, in the same niche, working out would be good. But I dont see very much.

Open source is not a silver bullet, least of all as a business model. It has plenty of strengths, but its a real stretch to imagine that helping a small business raise revenue is one of them.

[aMUSEd]

afaik also Blender was only open sourced after a $100,000 crowdfund.

[Zexila]

Well, MuLab is now supported on both major platforms and works on Linux via WINE, what would make major buzz is if Jo released MuLab 5/6 as a freebie, so it becomes a king of free DAW's, Tracktion did the same. I mentioned this to Jo before Tracktion 4 became free, still think it's the way to go...or at least double up limitations of free version.

[TheoXD]

This is why I created this topic to brainstorm ideas, I know monetizing on open source is quite hard.
* First thing that comes to mind is to keep generators and filters closed source, as a DLL that has to be purchased and free version could still generate noise. At least the rest could be maintained by community.
* Or MUX could be closed source while the rest can be opened up (currently the main attraction of the MuLab)

[Michael L]

I disagree entirely, from a user perspective. Most of my favourite audio software was developed by one or two people, evolves in innovative directions, and is thus inspiring to use -- like MuLab. I suggest the exact opposite approach: enabling donations to fund specialized features.

[Zexila]

I suggest the exact opposite approach: enabling donations to fund specialized features.

Really great idea.

So, for example, every user that wants time stretching could donate for the cause and enable Jo R&D resources for it.

[chk071]

I can only speak for myself, but, i really think the lack of popularity of MuLab, or, the lack of popularity its users see, has other reasons than the ones which got mentioned so far. As a user of highly popular DAW's, Cubase, Studio One, Reason (not anymore), i can only say that, the few times i checked MuLab out, i was put off by the look (kind of toyish for me, no offense), the workflow (didn't seem too intuitive, and it also has quite a few miles long context menus), and the lack of included content, the included plugins (MUX may seem like a hell of a toy for people who are into modulars, but, for me, it's pretty off-putting, the approach, and also the dozens of windows layout. I'm rather into classic layout, rather simple synths than modular monsters which overwhelm you with options, windows, and possibilities). As this is not very likely to change, as it makes out a lot of what MuLab represents, i can't really see how open source-ing it (whyterabbyt raised some good points about that), or making older releases available for free is going to solve that. For me, MuLab is rather likely to stay niche. I know, that's hard for people to accept who like it for what it is. But why not just take it for what it is, and nevermind the other stuff?

[Zexila]

Well, just mentioned what could make more buzz opposed to open sourcing it, there's my other long and boring posts across this board about MuLab and what it could be done and what it lacks and etc, I'm bored even thinking about that again, Jo confirmed that he wants to change direction a little too and cater even more to newcomers, get MuLab out there, so accepting niche market isn't the goal here.

I also would like to see that and would like to help out, sharing some insights is valuable, personally I'm giving away MuLab to anyone that asks me about DAW in real world, also teach them how to use it and have real life experience what some newcomers would expect from a DAW, especially MuLab, so guess have something to say about all this.

There's no cracked MuLab, maybe that's one of the reasons why it's not out there in the masses too, but instead free version is serving that duty, so my idea of having full free version isn't that crazy, think that's valuable for his business, to get out from this niche circles and my neighborhoods dog starts using it.

[TheoXD]

I disagree entirely, from a user perspective. Most of my favourite audio software was developed by one or two people, evolves in innovative directions, and is thus inspiring to use -- like MuLab. I suggest the exact opposite approach: enabling donations to fund specialized features.

I know a game engine that was developed in house by 2 people, and since it has been open sourced it evolved rapidly, with over 2000 pull requests and 6000 commits in 2 years. It also takes innovative approach, and I like using it more than others. Most bugs are gone, usability improved, and it still feels familiar because original developers were supervising everything. Yes, MuLab is good, but could be even better. From a user perspective you should fear that software that was developed by 1-2 people can be put on hold if developers decide so. Open sourcing would lift some responsibilities and allow it to run without relying on main developers.

I suggest the exact opposite approach: enabling donations to fund specialized features.

Really great idea.

So, for example, every user that wants time stretching could donate for the cause and enable Jo R&D resources for it.

Or someone who needed time stretching (since it is so popular) would already implement it at no cost, if it's really that lacking. Plus you can still crowdfund to make specific features, it's not like it's going to be impossible. The bigger userbase (if open sourced) the bigger are chances to get the funds needed for that feature.

[VariKusBrainZ]

Yeah, cos the other open sourced DAWs are doing so well

[TheoXD]

Yeah, cos the other open sourced DAWs are doing so well

With a good business model and better project management it can go better than for LMMS ans Ardour.

Problems: not everyone maybe has money saved to buy license att full price. Not the most popular daw atm.
Solution: open sourcing parts of the software. GitHub for better user interaction. make OpenSource version mostly useless on it's own.
What can be sold: Well MUX, filters, instruments, audio engine itself.
Monetizing: rent-to-own model when every payment goes towards full license, making it more accessible.
Advantages: More exposure, improved usability, better platform support, better documentation, more functionality.
Potential downsides: community might come up with own MUX/filters/instruments/audio engine making official ones pointless to buy.

Going full open source would be completely crazy, as there is no way back it is very risky. My suggestion is more safe I think. It would still be same MuLab only better, more stable, with more users, possibly higher rated too, and this will reflects on total sales.

[gammatotchi]

Maybe Jo was planning to release the older ver. of Mulab? I guess same with tracktion maybe if M8 will released?

[Michael L]

My suggestion is more safe I think.

I have fearless confidence in the reliable main developer (and less in the 'open source dsp community'). I believe your focus on monetizing puts 'the cart before the horse' because you are starting at the end of the value chain. We should focus on the beginning: adding value. To add value, we could form user groups to help develop a few key features in collaboration with Jo. We can learn, have fun, speed up development, add useful features, and attract a wider range of users (and perhaps programmers). Personally, I think the most needed 'value' is for new users to first know that MuLab exists, and then learn to take advantage of all the possibilities

[lilyyy]

what would make major buzz is if Jo released MuLab 5/6 as a freebie

I like this idea, although I feel like 6 is still too recent to give away for free. Anyway, I find the free version to be too finicky to get used to the interface because I still get the white noise with only two tracks: MuDrum and a MUX playground. I'm sure there's something I'm missing about the limitations that causes it but it's really annoying to have to deal with the white noise almost immediately after starting to play around with it. Alternatively, a full trial period before reverting would be pretty nice.