Re: an indecent proposal (for people who know something about operating systems)

It's not the concept of an appliance the market doesn't like, but an
appliance that only does one thing. If all people wanted was a recording
interface then this wouldn't be an issue but the market for gear that is
specifically aimed at professional engineers is small. It's not compelling
financially or in regards to future hardware/software growth for the
remaining 90% of the audio technology consumers that need the device to do
more than just write bits.

A good example of an "appliance" that bridges this gap (and ergo an example
of an appliance that probably has a future) is a device like the Receptor.
It's a hardened, purpose-driven device, but under the hood all it really is
is x86 PC hardware running a cut down Linux distribution with a Windows
emulator that allows it to run VSTi's. You get hardware(-ish) reliability
but with the ability to expand the functionality of the device.



"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:evel9c$j2d$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ben Hanson <transparency_76@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To what end? For most DAW users, it's an answer to a question that no one
is
really asking. A manufacturer is going to expect a quantification of why
it
is compelling and that's a tough sell given what is already available.

Why it is compelling is because it gives you an appliance. You get a
standalone system that can't run any external applications, and therefore
has no chance of external applications causing interference. It is a
completely controlled environment for the application and therefore gives
you solid integration between hardware and software.

The thing is... the market doesn't seem to _want_ appliances. And that's
a shame, because I do. Oh well, the Ampex is still running just fine...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages