Fork in audio software?

[Grodada]

Why is there no more fork engineering in software audio, in a saturated daw market this must make sense.
For example, the new ableton hardware could have been a dj controller with a fork live version, abandoning the arrangement part and increasing the session part.
The same goes for audio editors who have been stagnating for a long time to devote themselves to podcasting/mastering/broadcasting, without ever thinking
of a fork version for advanced editing for sampling, with map editor and batch processing/procedural processing.
Only Studio One has done it with its add-on audio batch converter.

[whyterabbyt]

Probably because it'd costs more money to make multiple products, and it''d make less money, since you wont get away with charging the same amount as for an all-in-one version, and nobody's going to buy multiple versions of the same product.

>>Only Studio One has done it with its add-on audio batch converter.

well, no, that's not really a fork, that's an add-on. Same with Waveform which has multiple different functionality addons.

Closest to a fork is Nuendo/Cubase where Nuendo is a superset of Cubase focussed more on post.

[Grodada]

magix with these softwares seems to have common bases?
melda does it with its plug, renoise with its port vst redux.
I can not confirm or not what you say about the cost of development, we are not talking about cars but when we create a common platform it should cost less than starting from nothing.

[Grodada]

With AI, maybe we can put scripts in our DAW to modify it in a simple and affordable way (cost and knowledge).

[whyterabbyt]

magix with these softwares seems to have common bases?

Possibly yes, but this (like Cubendo really) is more like 'tiers' of software where the higher tiers adds functionality, rather than different versions with different functionality sets.

ie 'common base' isnt quite the same as a set of niche-specific fork

melda does it with its plug, renoise with its port vst redux.

What melda plugin?

Redux is a subset of Renoise implemented as a plugin; I personally wouldnt categorise that as the niche-specific fork I thought you were talking about.

I can not confirm or not what you say about the cost of development, we are not talking about cars but when we create a common platform it should cost less than starting from nothing.

Yes, but when you create one application based on a platform it costs less than developing, buildng, testing, marketing, distributing two applications based on that platform.

Now, a situation like Waveform where there's a 'full fat' version with all functionality, then 'addons' to a lower-tier version each of which gives some of that 'full fat' functionality; that, done proprely, could get you in the same place as you're talking about with far less overheads than multiple variants of the same product. But you are still cannibalising your own sales if you're not careful.

[Tiles]

Why is there no more fork engineering in software audio, in a saturated daw market this must make sense.
For example, the new ableton hardware could have been a dj controller with a fork live version, abandoning the arrangement part and increasing the session part.
The same goes for audio editors who have been stagnating for a long time to devote themselves to podcasting/mastering/broadcasting, without ever thinking
of a fork version for advanced editing for sampling, with map editor and batch processing/procedural processing.
Only Studio One has done it with its add-on audio batch converter.

First, to fork a software there must be a software to fork from. What you most probably mean is open source development.

The reason is the same than for closed software. Manpower, resources, money, knowledge, and did i mention manpower and knowledge before?The imageline staff behind FL Studio is around 50 people at the moment, full time. Paid Professionals. You might find enough software engineers that are capable to do the job to create a state of the art DAW when you pay them. But at a volunteer base? Full time? No way.

[whyterabbyt]

With AI, maybe we can put scripts in our DAW to modify it in a simple and affordable way (cost and knowledge).

Only if the DAW supports deep customisation from the outset, and that's a thing that has a significant development/resource implication in and of itself.
I hate to say it (because cliche), but if you want to go there, then Reaper's your main option.

Of course an all in one tool where you can customise the set of tools available on the UI (ie disabling the notation or clip launcher windows or whatever) gets you a pragmatic part of the way, or at worst you can just not use specific functionality...

[whyterabbyt]

First, to fork a software there must be a software to fork from. What you most probably mean is open source development.

No, I dont necessarily think he does, I got the impression he was talking about 'focussed' alternate (or 'niche-specific') versions of the same tool.
And yeah, generally I would expect the use of the word fork to have the OS connotation, but it doesnt read like that here. Or at least I dont think it does.

[Grodada]

I think I have tested all the daws of the 2000s apart from protool/logic/orion, currently I have six daws installed, the one that seemed the most modular is usine but the interface is too cryptic
for me.
Reaper is more readable but less oriented creation, not to mention daw, I find that concepts of autonomous and innovative software can be possible, in any case more than what is proposed, we have the impression of a bottleneck on the sequencers/audio editor/dj software that copy each other.

[Tiles]

First, to fork a software there must be a software to fork from. What you most probably mean is open source development.

No, I dont necessarily think he does, I got the impression he was talking about 'focussed' alternate (or 'niche-specific') versions of the same tool.
And yeah, generally I would expect the use of the word fork to have the OS connotation, but it doesnt read like that here. Or at least I dont think it does.

Sure, but technically you cannot fork a closed software

[osiris]

I read this as Forkin Audio Software (amen brother)

[Grodada]

whyterabbyt understood my use of the word "fork", I looked for a term that comes closest to my thoughts,
I don't really master Lexical field of computer development.
The basic idea I wanted to express was the reuse of the basic code to reorient the operation of the software.
It seems to me that renoise inherited the code from another tracker at its beginnings.
I suppose that coders don't reinvent the wheel for each project.
I can easily understand that the team and the financial means support the concept and the realization.

[Tiles]

I suppose that coders don't reinvent the wheel for each project.

You usually need to. That's what copyright is for. Of course there are frameworks that you can use or license, and of course you can pick up an existing open source project and continue from there (pitfall ahead, your project most probably needs to stay open source then due licensing). But most of the code needs to be self written even then. Including reinventing the wheel. Since you cannot simply walk over and grab anotherone's wheel. There is no such thing than basic code.

You cannot simply write the makers of Cubase or Renoise to ask for the code, and then alter it to your needs. Well, cool idea and worth a try, but they will most probably laugh at you ^^

When you want to rebuild Cubase or Renoise, then you need to do it from scratch. With your own code and possibilities. And this means a multi million dollar investment and many manyears of work.

Doing it open source and volunteer based makes it even harder to achieve your goal. Ardour is such an open source effort. Great project, as a developer i like every open source. But look where it stands when you compare it with FL Studio, Ableton or Cubase for example. Remember, your goal is to make it better than ...

Which should answer your question about rebuilding existing software, just better. That's not how it works

Do a bravery test. You talked about Renoise and trackers. Modplug Tracker is open source. Just try to alter a menu there

https://openmpt.org/
https://source.openmpt.org/

[jens]

Closest to a fork is Nuendo/Cubase where Nuendo is a superset of Cubase focussed more on post.

Well, the difference between Cubase and Nuendo (and between Samplitude and Sequoia) is basically of the same kind as between Cubase Artist and Cubase Pro - it's simply additional features and otherwise both applications are completely the same.

[Grodada]

Fun, openmpt reminds me of video game composer Raphaël Gesqua.