[gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make

From: "Ron Kuper" <RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:54:22 -0500

> If that can make it unlinked from MIDI internally.. 
 
Then... what?
 
If GMPI is unlinked from MIDI then I can assure no major commercial
vendor will be very interesting in supporting.  MIDI matters in the real
world.

________________________________

From: gmpi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gmpi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Didier Dambrin
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 11:45 AM
To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make


If that can make it unlinked from MIDI internally.. 
 
 


        Hi folks, 

        We held a GMPI working group meeting last Sunday as part of the
MMA annual general meeting.  Tim Hockin did a great job presenting the
requirements document, and I presented some preliminary material and
took a few bullets during the follow-up Q&A.

        About a dozen people attended the meeting.  I apologize if you
were there and I didn't get to say "hello" personally to each of you.

        Right now we're in a very strange place with respect to the MMA
and we need to decide what to do next.  Two major companies who we had
hoped would be at least minimally supportive of this effort have
expressed their disinterest.  The feeling was that the best thing GMPI
will do is enable smaller plugin vendors to easily deliver across
mulitple platforms (thanks to the planned wrappers), but that larger
established plugin vendors already have this technology and don't need
it.  

        There was also concern about the fact that GMPI would potential
be developed in a way that large commercial companies would have little
control over.  The point was made that the MMA is supposed to be
companies who make money doing this sort of thing; if a GMPI working
group member wasn't willing to pay the $400 to join the trade
association then they can't be taken seriously as a commercial
enterprise.

        I personally understand both points of view.  I happen to think
the idea of enabling smaller vendors to deliver on more platforms more
easily is very attractive.  Ultimately it will drive innovation among
music plugins and instruments.  But I also agree (as a commercial
vendor) that this needs to "matter" to parties who are doing this for a
living, either individually or as part of a company.

        So, decision time.  We can continue on outside the MMA and start
writing code on SourceForge or similar.  But this runs the risk of
increasing the amount of noise from casual participants.  There is also
the dange that GMPI as implemented starts to diverge from the
requirements that we worked so hard on.  And when we're done there is
little assurance that an association like the MMA will want to adopt
GMPI.  (It's bears mention that the MMA would want the copyright on the
specification -- not necessary the "reference implementation" aka the
code.)

        Or, we each can consider how "commercial" we are, and decide
whether or not joining the MMA makes sense.  I believe there are about a
half-dozen or so small for-profit companies represented on this list,
all of whom aren't in the MMA.  IF these all join, AND these all agree
to participate in the version 1 effort within the MMA, we stand a MUCH
greater chance of getting broad commercial adoption.

        Comments?

Follow-Ups:
- [gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make
  - From: Didier Dambrin

[gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make

Other related posts: