-----Original Message-----
From: gmpi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gmpi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of gogins@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:27 PM
To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make
I don't regard these points as likely to influence host vendors. They
all
got where they are today by doing the opposite, so their whole
experience
works against us.
When they start losing sales to open source competition or to GMPI-based
commercial competition, that will influence them.
I see two technical paths to this end:
First, base GMPI's reference implementation on OSC, or some other
network
protocol capable of beating MIDI at its own game, especially in
precision
timing and flexible control.
Second, make adapters so that anyone who develops with the reference
GMPI
SDK automatically gets VSTi, DXi, JACK, etc.
Then the first host vendor who adopts GMPI as a native protocol gets a
musical advantage over the others, and a lot of people will probably
have
written GMPI plugins that will leverage that advantage for the vendor.
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Mike Berry mberry@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:19:47 -0700
To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make
I believe that one of the reasons that some large companies have
not
seen any value in GMPI is that they don't see any need for
interoperability in this arena, unlike with MIDI or IPv6. They regard
their applications as platforms (in some cases, like Apple or MS, they
actually ARE platforms). They see little benefit in encouraging
multi-platform development - they would prefer to win the platform
battle and make everyone write to their platform.
I think it is incumbent on those of us who do not share this
view to
make it crystal clear why a common multi-platform plugin system is
beneficial to all.
So in that spirit I want to start a list of the points in favor
of a
standardized, multi-platform plugin environment in hopes of producing a
document which might persuade some of the reluctant MMA members (I am
assuming here that all of the companies in question primarily develop
hosts):
- Widest possible variety of 3rd party plugins available for your host.
This may be of particular interest to hardware developers who rarely
have had access to 3rd party plugin innovation.
- Lower development costs since you only need to support one plugin API.
- Never having to support a plugin API controlled by a competitor.
- No developer support required since you do not control the API.
- Increased ability to create a single working environment for your
customers. Currently, customers may need multiple hosts in order to
access plugins or specific features only available on particular hosts.
In the GMPI environment, particularly with nested hosts, the user can
stay within their chosen host for all operations.
- A chance to discard legacy baggage accumulated over a number of years
within your own proprietary API.
Please add to this list is you see other benefits to companies
with
established hosts and/or plugin APIs.
