Unofficial Mackie User Forums > DL1608/DL806/DL32R/ProDX Mixers
Master Fader V2.0 Wants and Speculation
Jkowtko:
I fear the volume levels of these units are too low for a 3rd party to make any money building a DL app. So it's really up to Mackie to put the investment into the app where they see fit. Maybe if they had a waiting list of people who will buy when the appropriate feature set is implemented, would they implement those features in a timeline which matches the apparent user demand we are seeing on these forums.
In the future, I hope a good interoperable "sound console communication protocol" emerges that allows for healthy competitive sound console app development separate from the development of the consoles themselves ... then the consumers will really win.
sam.spoons:
--- Quote from: Jkowtko on July 23, 2013, 11:03:36 PM ---I fear the volume levels of these units are too low for a 3rd party to make any money building a DL app. So it's really up to Mackie to put the investment into the app where they see fit. Maybe if they had a waiting list of people who will buy when the appropriate feature set is implemented, would they implement those features in a timeline which matches the apparent user demand we are seeing on these forums.
--- End quote ---
Agreed
--- Quote ---In the future, I hope a good interoperable "sound console communication protocol" emerges that allows for healthy competitive sound console app development separate from the development of the consoles themselves ... then the consumers will really win.
--- End quote ---
Such protocols already exist. Mackie even have one themselves in the form of HUI. For it to be useful Master Fader needs to be accessible via MIDI though.
WK154:
--- Quote from: sam.spoons on July 24, 2013, 07:48:53 AM ---
--- Quote from: Jkowtko on July 23, 2013, 11:03:36 PM ---I fear the volume levels of these units are too low for a 3rd party to make any money building a DL app. So it's really up to Mackie to put the investment into the app where they see fit. Maybe if they had a waiting list of people who will buy when the appropriate feature set is implemented, would they implement those features in a timeline which matches the apparent user demand we are seeing on these forums.
--- End quote ---
Agreed
--- Quote ---In the future, I hope a good interoperable "sound console communication protocol" emerges that allows for healthy competitive sound console app development separate from the development of the consoles themselves ... then the consumers will really win.
--- End quote ---
Such protocols already exist. Mackie even have one themselves in the form of HUI. For it to be useful Master Fader needs to be accessible via MIDI though.
--- End quote ---
I will have to disagree with your assessment regarding 3rd party development. Having been there several times myself. Do the math it's simple. Let say that DL has sold as many as the X32 for which we have numbers of 40,000 units in less than a year (per Uli). Let's say that Mackie has shipped 50,000 units (it hasn't even been a year). This is the risk part what % of the market do you think you could sell to? Let's use 30% since your app is much better than Mackies and is cross platform. The number $50 has been mentioned on this forum but I believe that's too high so let's use $30 (29.95). That's a gross of $450,000.00 for one or two sharp programmers for a year. Ready to quit your day job Sam? It's all academic since Mackie wont release the communications spec for the DL. The USB v2.0 audio device spec has been out since 2006 and would be my choice.
http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs
sam.spoons:
Not my point actually, Mackie have HUI already, if it could talk to MF that'd be nice (I know it'll never happen). A multi platform protocol as jk suggests would have a much bigger customer base.
No disagreeing with you, mind, I know it's all pie in the sky :(
$450,000 a year... where do I sign.... oh, just a minute, I can't program worth sh1t.... :facepalm:
Jkowtko:
The only caveat about a multi-platform multi-vendor protocol is that it won't solve all of our problems immediate, as not all features could be implemented on the client side only. Fader linking, groups, DCAs, shorthand screens, yes -- but anything involving audio signal routing changes (e.g. aux send points) would have to be programmed on the server side as well.
I still think it's a great idea though ... the protocol could be designed to "encompass all" functionality, and recognize server restrictions and adjust the UI accordingly ... and allow our great capitalistic and competitive economy to do it's work in providing the consumer with more complete and feature-rich products across the board.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version